Dak Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 The thought about the anal stage of development is interesting. Perhaps Freud isn't as obsolete as some of the modern "drug pushers" think. no, i think he probably is, what with psychology having come a long way since his day and having accepted the need for, e.g., empiricism.
YT2095 Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 I`m becoming increasingly of the opinion that my Primary assessment of the OP is not without an element of Dark Humor but indeed the case!
Psyber Posted January 13, 2008 Posted January 13, 2008 No, it is a rather old descriptive concept. However, OCD is linked to a gene on the short arm of Chromosome 6 - I think it is 6 from memory - I don't have a copy of the paper handy.
Glider Posted January 13, 2008 Posted January 13, 2008 It's not about me, Glider. Get used to it and yes you are building a strawman. I've provided quite a few references outside of my own observations. Maybe I should discuss the nature of Nietzsche... Maybe you should. That would at least be a coherent topic, but the evidence suggests you couldn't stay on that topic for more than a paragraph. Dak,Back to you a bit earlier than thought... The thought about the anal stage of development is interesting. Perhaps Freud isn't as obsolete as some of the modern "drug pushers" think. The further of that thinking relates, I would venture, to the nature of one's toilet training. What do you think happens when a child is forced to learn the potty mission at barely one year? It seems you are referring to normal development and that would make me question kids at four or six that are still in diapers. It seems that either the forced or the totally free-form method would have some negative ramifications in later life. It seems the former would be forced to grow up too quick or perhaps might resent the prodding parent's gender, where the latter would be constantly expecting everything handed out on a silver platter. An example would be John Lennon's second child. (I don't remember his name... not Julian; Yoko's child) I haven't followed anything beyond Goldman's book, so if you know more, maybe we could learn from such. Note to those in question of this issue: I'm leaving the religion out of this from here forward. The references I made were to finish the original comparison. There's never any prejudice or "recruiting" of such here, but I hope it can be read into all of this that I respect people's rights to freedom of speech and religion. (I noted a "welcome to creationists" somewhere and I subscribe to such and firmly believe the Bible, still I believe that often the word "day" defines "era" and somewhere I read in Hebrew it can also mean "year.") 'Nuff said there... I couldn't ask for a better example of knight's move thinking.
Dr.CWho Posted January 17, 2008 Author Posted January 17, 2008 Nietzche's philosophies seem to attract anal retentives that show up, not unlike what DAK depicted, as those who cannot stand imperfection as their frame of reference defines it. Examples: Hitler, Mussolini, Charles Manson... The knight is an effective game piece. It can jump over "ring baloney."
Glider Posted January 18, 2008 Posted January 18, 2008 The knight is an effective game piece. It can jump over "ring baloney."True, but irrelevant.
Dr.CWho Posted January 18, 2008 Author Posted January 18, 2008 Then why did you bring up the obviously comparable "knight's move?" If someone doesn't wish to waste their time on someone else's hyperbola, it becomes relevant to the other person's straw man. I notice you failed to comment about Manson and the rest mentioned. You go right back to building the strawman to focus on the person doing the posting. I notice you claim to be a Ph.D. in your profile. If that is true, you must have earned it by completing the minimum requirements in lieu of some profound findings... One good strawman deserves another for compatible company Has it ever occurred to you that some good physics and biochemistry combined just might offer the means someday to enhance a person's mental capacity or perhaps even to reverse aging? Do you really thing Risperdal and Paxil, et hoc genus omne, are the best solutions when it is being found that sometimes they drive people to suicide? Dr. CWho
Glider Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 Then why did you bring up the obviously comparable "knight's move?" If someone doesn't wish to waste their time on someone else's hyperbola, it becomes relevant to the other person's straw man.Look it up. Knight's move thinking has nothing to do with chess. "Knight's move thinking. This is thought disorder denoting a lack of connection between ideas. Links between ideas may be illogical or the speech may wander between trains of thought ... ... Loosening of associations is also called knight's move thinking. The move of the knight in chess is used as a metaphor for the unexpected, and illogical, connections between ideas." (From GP Notebook. Bold added.). I notice you failed to comment about Manson and the rest mentioned. You said "Maybe I should discuss the nature of Nietzsche... ", and instead go straight back to anal-retentiveness (again) introducing Manson, Hitler and Mussolini, presumably as examples? There is nothing coherent here on which to comment. You go right back to building the strawman to focus on the person doing the posting. I notice you claim to be a Ph.D. in your profile. If that is true, you must have earned it by completing the minimum requirements in lieu of some profound findings... One good strawman deserves another for compatible company That's not a strawman, it's an Ad hominem attack. My thesis stands or falls on its own merits. Your opinion of me is irrelevant. Has it ever occurred to you that some good physics and biochemistry combined just might offer the means someday to enhance a person's mental capacity or perhaps even to reverse aging? Do you really thing Risperdal and Paxil, et hoc genus omne, are the best solutions when it is being found that sometimes they drive people to suicide?Another example of Knight's move thinking; another thought presented that has no logical association with anything that preceded it.
Dr.CWho Posted January 19, 2008 Author Posted January 19, 2008 You contradicted yourself: You say the "Knight's move thinking" has nothing to do with chess, yet refer to it as a metaphor of a chess move. Fascinating... Regarding Nietzche: All those exemplified are subscribers to Nietzcheism. The quest for perfection regardless of the cost. Why is it some so-called "authorities" can only postulate their "superior knowledge" by making an attack through implication upon imaginative thinkers that they are liars? In 1994 the press discounted many observations of the SL-9 impacts by amateur astronomers even though the comet fragments were discovered by an amateur astronomer. At first I respected your opinion, but now I find it nothing short of ad hoc "ring baloney." I imagine anal retentive thinking would be insulted when it is exposed...
iNow Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 How about you stop with the Galileo gambit and support your claims with more than just ad homs and non-sequiturs?
Glider Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 You contradicted yourself: You say the "Knight's move thinking" has nothing to do with chess, yet refer to it as a metaphor of a chess move. Fascinating...No, it's not ‘a metaphor of a chess move’. It’s a metaphor for disassociated thinking. It refers to pathological thought processes, not chess. Regarding Nietzche: All those exemplified are subscribers to Nietzcheism. The quest for perfection regardless of the cost.What has examples of people who subscribed to the philosophies of Nietzche got to do with the philosophies themselves? Why is it some so-called "authorities" can only postulate their "superior knowledge" by making an attack through implication upon imaginative thinkers that they are liars? In 1994 the press discounted many observations of the SL-9 impacts by amateur astronomers even though the comet fragments were discovered by an amateur astronomer. I have no idea what you’re talking about here. It doesn’t connect to anything else apart from your constant whining about ‘brilliant minds’ (like yours, no doubt) being put down by ‘anal retentive types’ (i.e. anyone who does not recognise your brilliance, no doubt). At first I respected your opinion,I doubt that. I suspect yours is the only opinion you consider worth listening to. Either way, your respect for my opinion (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. but now I find it nothing short of ad hoc "ring baloney."I don’t know what that means. I imagine anal retentive thinking would be insulted when it is exposed... I imagine it would, if there were such a thing. In any event, I suggest you take iNow’s advice. This is a pointless thread and if you do not present a case worthy of discussion, I’ll close it.
Dr.CWho Posted January 22, 2008 Author Posted January 22, 2008 Temper, temper... Close it if you like. Of course that would be interpreted as a victory in my opinion, because it reflects a cowardly despotism that underlies exactly what Nietzche was depicting. It would reflect a discussion you can't win because you aren't able to provide any more counter references and your only ammunition is your ability to call me a liar. I stated originally that these were observations and the one I mentioned depicted an ARB type's response to his self inflicted demise. I referenced Karl Menninger's "Man Against Himself." If you are what you claim to be in Psyche, then this could have led into more similar situations and results that occur in industry that a shrink would never see in a hospital or clinical environment. Instead of assessing the nature of the events, you assess me (wrongly) as angry. What do you expect? I'm going to pull up references to industrial situations from a world of clinical evaluations? I'm certain if I dig deeply again into Nietzche's work, I'll find something to bring up, but as of now it seems a waste of time. Whether I'm brilliant or not isn't the point. Why does that possibility seem to bother you?
Phi for All Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Well, imo this thread went nowhere, and didn't even come close to being interesting psychologically. Lots of fingers-in-the-ears la-la-la-ing, defensive posturing and hand-waving. This happens a lot when someone has an idea they think is awe-inspiring and then presents it as a fait accompli. There is almost no room to discuss anything and with no real merits or evidence the OP is left to deride detractors and try to win any argument in order to pretend they won *this* one. Remember that scientific speculation requires good ammunition *and* an open mind. Thread closed.
Recommended Posts