What is the nature of denial??

[Blagsta]

Fragile ego again?

I'm just fed up with your superiority complex and half baked ideas about psychology. You're not superior to the rest of us. We all deny things about ourselves, you're no better than anyone else. In fact I'd hazard a guess that your need to paint yourself as purer than the rest of us is a form of denial.

 

[Blagsta]

No offence, but I don't believe this freudian crap.

Its certainly sort of Freudian - but a very badly understood sort of Freud.

 

[Blagsta]

I've never read freud

Maybe you should.

 

[fela fan]

I'm just fed up with your superiority complex and half baked ideas about psychology. You're not superior to the rest of us. We all deny things about ourselves, you're no better than anyone else. In fact I'd hazard a guess that your need to paint yourself as purer than the rest of us is a form of denial.

Blagsta, let me explain in just one go. Learn if you listen, or continue to be handicapped by your inflexible views of what you read. Also, learn to read better mate: stop rushing in with your reactions to words, this way you may stop reading things that are not in the text.


You're fed up. Fair enough, enjoy being fed up and enjoy feeling negative about it. Nothing to do with me.

I have no superiority complex. So, it must simply be you that thinks i have one, therefore the problems lies with you, not me. As it turns out i operate my life on the basis that i am no better than anybody else, and nobody else is better than me. So, you have completely got this bit wrong, and therefore you should have a look at yourself and wonder why you think this about me.

Half baked ideas. Again, this is your opinion, simply that, nothing more nothing less. So understand this: my ideas are not half baked, your opinion is that my ideas are half baked. Do you see the difference?

"We all deny things about ourselves, you're no better than anyone else."

Could you show me where i say i'm better than anyone else please? Or is this just your thinking again, what you think i think? And can you also show me where i say i am not included in the people that self deny?

My "...need to paint yourself as purer than the rest of us" is again a figment of your imagination, based on your experiences of life thus far. I have no need to paint myself as anything other than the person i am. Life is absolutely simple when you take care of being yourself instead of trying to be someone you are not. It's really a question of controlling your ego rather than letting it control you.

On that latter point, i'd certainly hazard a guess i'm better than many. But guess what blagsta, that doesn't mean i'm a better or superior person, simply that i do this better than you do that. No doubt you do that or those better than i do this or these.

Do you get it now? Just stop confusing my words and ideas with the person i am. You get it wrong all the time.

And anyway, so what if some fucker thinks he's superior to you? Does it really damage you? Why do you get fed up?

 

[fela fan]

Its certainly sort of Freudian - but a very badly understood sort of Freud.

Did you read the post where i told johnny i've never read freud. So how can i badly misunderstand someone who i've never read or listened to?

Is freud some kind of expert on the matter of this thread? Does he know more than those people living a hundred years on from him? Has not a lot of his stuff been demonstrated otherwise? Was not a lot of it dodgy because he separated one discipline out of the whole, leaving the context incomplete?

 

[fela fan]

Maybe you should.

Ah, you did read it! Nah, can't be bothered mate. Fromm talks about him, and had moved well on from freud's work.

 

[Blagsta]

Blagsta, let me explain in just one go. Learn if you listen, or continue to be handicapped by your inflexible views of what you read.

There you go again, straight away. You just can't help it can you?

 

[Blagsta]

Did you read the post where i told johnny i've never read freud. So how can i badly misunderstand someone who i've never read or listened to?

Is freud some kind of expert on the matter of this thread? Does he know more than those people living a hundred years on from him? Has not a lot of his stuff been demonstrated otherwise? Was not a lot of it dodgy because he separated one discipline out of the whole, leaving the context incomplete?

Pretty much all the concepts you bang on about - "mirrors" (what you really mean is projection btw), ego, denial etc - they are all concepts from Freud.

 

[Blagsta]

Ah, you did read it! Nah, can't be bothered mate. Fromm talks about him, and had moved well on from freud's work.

What an arrogant tosser you are.

 

[phildwyer]

What an arrogant tosser you are.

Oh the irony.

 

[NoEgo]

What an odd thing the ego is.
One of the primary directives of the ego apart from to give a person the sense of "I-ness" seems to be to protect the self or perhaps self-esteem of the person it belongs to (maybe it's all the same thing). Self-esteem is one of those all-important tools needed to get along in life, and is the same as or seems to be intertwined with self-belief. If you have no self-belief then failure will tend to perpetuate itself in one's life.

Here is the order in which I see things and indeed I see them as pillars of the self: Self-image > Self-esteem > Self-belief

Things can get dangerous when the self-esteem/ego is threatened, because in order to protect itself, it has to assert that fact that it is right and the threatening party is wrong, and will make every effort to make sure that it wins the case. I say it's dangerous because we often need to know that the truth actually is, rather than suffering from self-delusion, which is the nature of denial. I was going to give examples, but you know what, I don't think it's necessary becasue we have all experienced conflict in our lifes and have come up with all sorts of solutions to try and deal with the problem.

I've learnt from my mistakes by making them and have recognized that pulling wool over your own eyes only furthers damage. It's all a question of self-honesty. What I seek in order to make the right decisions in life is dissolution of the ego; to be the observer, to try obsverve without judgement, because to judge without firstly observing is to pre-judge a situation. Some say we all have a blind spot. I say that actually that blind "spot" is pretty fucking wide!

It's WAY more relaxing to simply become the observer in life, rather than try and fulfill my need to be right, which is only there because of my ignorance. Hell, not only is it more relaxing, life all of a sudden becomes more entertaining! It's amusing watching people lose their rag, wave their arms madly in the air, shout and be so off-centre they are out in orbit with planet Pluto. Emotional intelligence. The lack of. You just can't beat it.

"If you can keep your whilst all round others are losing theirs......"

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Huh? Have i described freud's ego?? .

Right here:

"The ego is a very cunning slippery fellow. To lie comes simply if there is to be a gain, or an avoidance of a bad thing. The ego can convince itself of anything. And if the ego is in charge, ie the person carrying it associates him/herself with their ego as being the real them, then the bit that we may call the soul is suppressed."

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No offence taken. Cept it ain't no freud crap. It's my crap thanks.

And it's not even crap johnny, it's fact mate. Have you not tried observing your ego? Have you not felt the confusing pull by both heart and head on what to do sometimes?

Your ego mate is your society and your past all mixed up. You is you, and is the bit that belongs outside of the realm of language. This real you cannot harm nature, because it is part of nature, and harming oneself is only something the ego will propose.

I've never read freud, and about the only thing i could tell you about him is that he was a famous psychologist and he was obsessed about sex.

I find that the whole western practice of departmentalizing and subdividing everything to be false and artificial. When you talk about a pull between head and heart, you're describing two aspects of the same thing. Id, ego, superego etc, all part of western fascination with taxonomy. You question the existence of 'races', yet you don't accept the seamlessness of your own inner identity.

 

[soulman]

Right here:

"The ego is a very cunning slippery fellow. To lie comes simply if there is to be a gain, or an avoidance of a bad thing. The ego can convince itself of anything. And if the ego is in charge, ie the person carrying it associates him/herself with their ego as being the real them, then the bit that we may call the soul is suppressed."

Is that what Freud wrote, word for word?

I guess it shows people are capable of thinking independently without deference to some so called 'expert'.

 

[Aldebaran]

Very Cartesian

I think the man's genius was in encapsulating the Indo-European tradition (of souls and avatars). But that view leads one straight into the classic epistemological problem, of how one gets from "my reality" to the real. There's really no point in talking about brains if one cannot make the connection, if you see what I mean.

Given the Cartesian view, the goodness of God is our guarantee of knowledge. But for practical purposes, one needs to know something of the workings of the process, and not just leave things as "it's god wot dun it". The Cartesian view essentially makes it impossible to progress on this. It is a dead end.

If you like, however the Almighty One worked this wonder in practice, it was not by this means.

Descartes was not what I was thinking about (I got classes in Western philosophy but up to now didn't undertake in-depth study worth the name) but now that you mention him, I think to see what you refer to (cogito ergo sum).
Actually, I don’t agree because in my view the ability to reason (even if only applied to and valid in the strict present) is insufficient to explain - or claim - “existence”.
Which is part of the problem you see with it.
Answering your remark about inability to make connection between “my reality” and what you call “the real”, it is not there that the problem is situated, but in deciding what *is* “the real”.
I prefer to recognise “my reality” as distinct from everything else (which you might call “the real”) even if both seem to match or overlap. Awareness should offer more clarity then "thinking" (the English "thinking" doesn't transfer correctly what Descartes meant either).
One could argue that awareness is dependend of thinking and can’t even exist without it, I would argue the opposite. One could also argue that if you exclude conscious thinking then all what is left is “instinct”, but instinct is caused by the cumulative result of DNA-transferred reasoning patterns (hence doesn’t require conscious thinking) but awareness doesn’t require instinct, it only requires some functioning braincells

salaam.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Is that what Freud wrote, word for word?
.

No.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Descartes was not what I was thinking about (I got classes in Western philosophy but up to now didn't undertake in-depth study worth the name) but now that you mention him, I think to see what you refer to (cogito ergo sum).
Actually, I don’t agree because in my view the ability to reason (even if only applied to and valid in the strict present) is insufficient to explain - or claim - “existence”.
Which is part of the problem you see with it.
Answering your remark about inability to make connection between “my reality” and what you call “the real”, it is not there that the problem is situated, but in deciding what *is* “the real”.
I prefer to recognise “my reality” as distinct from everything else (which you might call “the real”) even if both seem to match or overlap. Awareness should offer more clarity then "thinking" (the English "thinking" doesn't transfer correctly what Descartes meant either).
One could argue that awareness is dependend of thinking and can’t even exist without it, I would argue the opposite. One could also argue that if you exclude conscious thinking then all what is left is “instinct”, but instinct is caused by the cumulative result of DNA-transferred reasoning patterns (hence doesn’t require conscious thinking) but awareness doesn’t require instinct, it only requires some functioning braincells

salaam.

If you're interested in this, forget Descartes. Read Immanuel Kant.

 

[Aldebaran]

If you're interested in this, forget Descartes. Read Immanuel Kant.

We had introductions to everything starting with the times of the myths until today, but seen my handicap Dyslex I was always much limited in my reading. Up to now I never found the time to study in depth. Not by lack of interest though, it is fascinating. Maybe some day....

salaam.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We had introductions to everything starting with the times of the myths until today, but seen my handicap Dyslex I was always much limited in my reading. Up to now I never found the time to study in depth. Not by lack of interest though, it is fascinating. Maybe some day....

salaam.

Interesting question, how does dyslexia affect reading of arabic script?

I know that with our alphabet, the dyslexic reader will make transposition errors, etc. I don't know enough about arabic writing, to know what kinds of errors would be common.

 

[fela fan]

There you go again, straight away. You just can't help it can you?

There's obviously no hope for you if you have closed ears and mind. You didn't listen did you? Were you denying things to yourself?

As for the mirrors, what you say might be right, but i have no idea, coz what's 'projection'? However a classic example of what i mean by mirrors is provided by yourself, where you have called me someone who has a 'superiority complex' and who is an 'arrogant tosser'.

According to my own personal mirror theory, this means that you have an inferiority complex, and that you yourself are an arrogant tosser. You see, in your rush to condemn me with personally insulting language, what you do is reveal far more about yourself than the person you're attacking. A person of course who you know fuck all about, and therefore must be blatantly wrong in calling them for particular personality traits. The conclusion, according to my mirror theory, is that i am acting as a conduit for your own ideas and beliefs about life. But at the moment this particular mirror is unpolished and cloudy, for you are not listening and not looking inwards dear boy.

Funny old world innit.

[solution: you measure me by your own standards in life. Therefore, even though it's hit and miss as to whether you call me correctly, what is certain is that you reveal your own biases and beliefs and ideas.]

[but it's only a solution if you start listening to me mate, but no doubt you're simply too fed up with me to do that. So continue on.]

 

[fela fan]

No.

Well what are you talking about then?

It wouldn't be surprising to anybody with a brain that i might be putting forward some ideas that freud had, i believe he had quite an impact in his day over his ideas, and therefore all the stuff that has consequently stood the test of time is probably in many people's unconsciousness.

However i cannot willingly describe freud's concept of the ego, coz i've never read a word of him, save what others quote him as saying.

Whether you like it or not johnny, we are all two people. The only way to become one is as noego points out: become the observer, observe one's ego, don't let it make judgements. And live by a two-pronged mantra:

i don't care
i am a nobody

A whole heap of sanity and contentment is the outcome.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As for the mirrors, what you say might be right, but i have no idea, coz what's 'projection'?

If you've done any reading on things psychological, you might be expected to know what projection is. Even Fromm talks about it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well what are you talking about then?

He asked if it was word for word. It isn't.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

However i cannot willingly describe freud's concept of the ego, coz i've never read a word of him, save what others quote him as saying.

I've never read anything actually written by Einstein, but I've heard of E=Mc2.

 

[fela fan]

If you've done any reading on things psychological, you might be expected to know what projection is. Even Fromm talks about it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

No, i need blagsta to tell me what HE thinks projection is.

You should know by now that even common terms can be open to debate, due to the connotaionly nature of language and how it is totally dependent on context to be fully understood. I have my own understanding of what projection is, but when blagsta appears to not have the same understanding (due to conflicting things in his post) i want to know what his is.

 

[fela fan]

I've never read anything actually written by Einstein, but I've heard of E=Mc2.

Well, what the fuck do you want me to do about this man?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well, what the fuck do you want me to do about this man?

How about think about the possibility that even though you haven't read Freud, you might have a working knowledge of some of his ideas due to collateral reading, or just due to its prevalence in our society.

 

[Blagsta]

Is that what Freud wrote, word for word?

I guess it shows people are capable of thinking independently without deference to some so called 'expert'.

You are rather confused aren't you? Poor chap

 

[Blagsta]

I find that the whole western practice of departmentalizing and subdividing everything to be false and artificial. When you talk about a pull between head and heart, you're describing two aspects of the same thing. Id, ego, superego etc, all part of western fascination with taxonomy. You question the existence of 'races', yet you don't accept the seamlessness of your own inner identity.

Freud also acknowledged that the id, ego and superego are all aspects of the same thing and that body and mind are not seperate.

 

[Blagsta]

There's obviously no hope for you if you have closed ears and mind. You didn't listen did you? Were you denying things to yourself?

As for the mirrors, what you say might be right, but i have no idea, coz what's 'projection'? However a classic example of what i mean by mirrors is provided by yourself, where you have called me someone who has a 'superiority complex' and who is an 'arrogant tosser'.

According to my own personal mirror theory, this means that you have an inferiority complex, and that you yourself are an arrogant tosser. You see, in your rush to condemn me with personally insulting language, what you do is reveal far more about yourself than the person you're attacking. A person of course who you know fuck all about, and therefore must be blatantly wrong in calling them for particular personality traits. The conclusion, according to my mirror theory, is that i am acting as a conduit for your own ideas and beliefs about life. But at the moment this particular mirror is unpolished and cloudy, for you are not listening and not looking inwards dear boy.

Funny old world innit.

[solution: you measure me by your own standards in life. Therefore, even though it's hit and miss as to whether you call me correctly, what is certain is that you reveal your own biases and beliefs and ideas.]

[but it's only a solution if you start listening to me mate, but no doubt you're simply too fed up with me to do that. So continue on.]

Yes, I'm full aware that my arrogance is sometimes a defence against my own insecurity at not knowing all the things I would like to. Thanks for the insight though. Now apply it to yourself.