List,
The answer (according to my own reasoning) for "wrong" ideas is the
addictive cycling between paranoia and surity experienced by the paired
male/female coupling (for the most part, although unresolved issues by the
child surrounding the love/lust dichotomy of its parents would allow for the
child to internalize this "fantasmagoric" tendency as well).
>Like a child, a woman tends to oscillate between two basic emotions -
>smugness and terror....
>I would say that like a child, a *girl* tends to oscillate between two basic
>emotions smugness and terror: I would say that a *woman* more simply stays
>with the basic emotion of *terror*. And where does a man stay? Smugness!
>This shows the progression from child to adult...woman to man (assuming that
>women, recovering from a minority status, haven't *matured* to the point of
>men...that is, shows a developmental perspective)*. A child oscillates
>between two basic emotions. The woman must choose one or the other. The
>man takes the other...and the *pair* work together to produce the child.
>In this scenario is the basis of the mating dance, growth and development.
>It is also the reason why "maya" exists (illusion). The balancing of terror
>with smugness (paranoia with security) produces imaginings of Hell and other
>dichotomous reasoning which takes a basic truth (a "tree", for example) and
>creates several alternate "not-trees" by which delusional systems of "logic"
>are formed. (see http://www.tctc.com/~unameit/shamego.jpg).
>The reason for the original childlike horror/smugness is complicated. Freud
>suggests it's a Oedipal complex whereby the child is frightened by the
>father (horror) and enmeshed with the mother (smugness). I blame it on the
>father who is jealous of the child for converting the mother from an object
>of lust to one of maternal love (cutting off the addictive substance
>"sex")...in the animal kingdom this is shown by male cannibalism of children
>(horror) and it creates family ties to the maternal (smugness).
>The child who leaves the safety of the family finds that he must compete for
>the security represented by "female" and that the female does not have the
>protective instinct of the mother. The child must therefore alternate
>between feelings of horror and smugness toward the female "mate" (who he may
>be addicted to, as above). This cyclic behavior produces the addiction of
>"lust" (like the highs and lows of cocaine, etc--the cycle--produces an
>overwhelming desire and then resolves that desire producing feelings of
>euphoria...which *is* the addictive cycle, mimicked by the mating ritual).
>Resolving this addiction (might) take the form of the female adopting
>feelings of paranoia (represented in over-emotionalism) and males taking on
>the feelings of smugness (over protectiveness, aggression). The balanced
>pair is thus bonded chemically. Further, I think the whole process is a
>sign of *disorder*, an IMPROPERLY resolved Oedipal complex...but that is a
>different thread.
>Brett
>*what I'm saying here is that "smugness" seems superior to terror--or even
>that one must progress through terror to find a resolution that approximates
>"smugness" in a more healthy manner..."surity", "confidence", "Truth"?
(from, Return-Path: <dquinn@pemail.net>
X-Sender: unameit@tctc.com
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:48:14 -0500
To: genius-L@newciv.org
From: Brett Lane Robertson <unameit@tctc.com>
Subject: re: Truth in advertising
At 11:29 AM 10/5/97 +1000)
BR
At 10:20 AM 10/5/97 +0100, you wrote:
>> From: David McFadzean[SMTP:david@lucifer.com]
>>
>> At 10:12 AM 10/4/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
>>
>> >I have to back Tim up on this one: what kind of light
>> >casts shadows of objects that don't exist? Nothing
>> >comes out of nothing. By your own creed, such
>> >shadows must have *some* cause, even though it's
>> >not the object you might first suppose. Seems to
>>
>> Incorrect interpretation. Where do you suppose the
>> ether, elan vital, ESP and other wrong ideas came from?
>>
>That's precisely what I'm asking: where did they come
>from? Nothing comes out of nothing. Some of the
>ideas that we now view as simply "wrong" were wrong-
>headed even in their own day, but many more were
>genuinely the best guesses that people could make at
>the time. Do you really think that none of the ideas we
>presently view as simply "right" will be disproven in the
>future? That doesn't make it wrong for us to hold these
>ideas now, and in fact it may be the case that we could
>not develop better ones, without the use of these
>imperfect ones as stepping stones.
>
>But even regarding those that ideas that are wrong-
>headed at the time: why do wrong-headed ideas come
>to be widely accepted? Because most people are
>stupid, or because there are psychological and
>sociological factors here worth investigating?
>*Especially* for memeticists, because the spread of
>memes, their acceptance and onward transmission
>for reasons other than their intrinsic rationality, is
>precisely what memetics is all about, is it not?
>
>(Well, not quite what it's *all* about, because when
>someone accepts and retransmits an idea saying
>they do so because it's rational, that falls under
>memetics too -- or do you disagree?)
>
>> >Do you think maybe that you just prefer the
>> >physical sciences to such as psychology, due to
>> >the "softness" (ie complexity) of the latter?
>>
>> Actually I don't prefer the physical sciences.
>>
>The reason I suggested you might was because
>you seem, in this context anyway, to have no
>interest in minds, and why they do the things
>they do, only in what's "out there".
>
>Robin
>
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Xerox never comes up with anything original.
