The Joy of Forgetting

[Guest Meninger]

Please comment on this short essay.

 

http://www.geocities.com/uiowa52405/psychology.htm

[DocBill]

Just in case I missed something. So I sent the URL to a friend who is a Psychology chair at a local college.

 

I also used my limited knowledge of Psychology (1 BA; 2 M.S.--never did get my Ph.D in Psych).

 

We both came to the same conclussion.

 

"What a load"

 

Bill

[Ryoken]

aww... what a dissapointment.

When I glanced upon the title of this thread i thought it said "The Joy Of FORGERY" . Which could have been quite ammusing if actual phsychological terms were applied to it.

 

I read the first paragraph, and judging by the content and style I would say that it was written by a 14 year old before his first highschool english class.

[Guest Meninger]

Yeah, it didn't seem like a psychology article in the sense that it was not specifically relevant to current psychological topics.

 

DocBill,

 

Where did you graduate from? I had recieved somewhat of a contructive feedback from the other forums that I had left this link on. It seems that none of you were able to pick out the central issue that was addressed by this essay.

 

I think that the commentaries on this essay were largely drawn on the dissonance in seeing the words "psychology" and words like "immortality" in the same essay.

 

Its too bad none of you even tried to deduce what was the central psychological issue.

 

There are so many brainless intellectuals out there, brainless and ignorant . Not brainless in the sense that the professional is not phenomenlogically sound, but brainless in terms that the individual can't see things past the terms that he or she had been educated with. It's like a biologist disregarding a particular phenomenon because he had not heard of the concepts that were posed or that he was too brainless to relate the phenomenon to the ones that he had learned previously.

 

Nevertheless, DocBill, it was very professionally sound of you that you read the article twice.

 

I did appreciate the comments.

[DocBill]

Well, now yes. I am not an "Intellectual" (although some hurl that blasphemy at me from time to time).

 

I graduated from U Maine with a BA in Psychology, minor in Anthro;

 

Also from Springfield College Graduate, with a Clinical Masters in Cognitive Psychology;

 

And from Bangor Theological Seminary, where my minor was (Counsleing Psychology);

 

After that I pretty much avoided Psychology in fiuture education.

 

There is a great amount to it, as there is with "faith" but it often gets drummed up to be more than it is. I keep reading up on it, but so far..no suprises. This article fell into that catergory.

 

Bill

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Meninger

Not brainless in the sense that the professional is not phenomenlogically sound, but brainless in terms that the individual can't see things past the terms that he or she had been educated with. It's like a biologist disregarding a particular phenomenon because he had not heard of the concepts that were posed or that he was too brainless to relate the phenomenon to the ones that he had learned previously.

 

unambitious, closeminded, nearsighted...

 

there is a whole ream of ways to condense this paragraph to one or two words

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

unambitious, closeminded, nearsighted...

 

there is a whole ream of ways to condense this paragraph to one or two words

"Like Adam" would do it quite nicely.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

"Like Adam" would do it quite nicely.

 

how about Adamesque?

[Sayonara]

That's very snappy.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Ryoken

I read the first paragraph, and judging by the content and style I would say that it was written by a 14 year old before his first highschool english class.

I thought so too, which is why I tried to respond a bit more gently to it when it appeared in the 'Depression' post in the psychology/psychiatry forum.

 

Please comment on this short essay.

I have done, in the above mentioned forum. However, if you're not a 14 year old before your first highschool English class, then you must be dribbling moron.

 

It seems that none of you were able to pick out the central issue that was addressed by this essay.

If this was anything like a reasonable essay, the central issue would have been clear.

 

Its too bad none of you even tried to deduce what was the central psychological issue.

There IS no central psychological issue in that 'essay'. The theme may be depression, but all the essay does is demonstrate a profound ignorance of the subject. Moreover, as the readers, it is not our job to 'try to deduce' what the crap you're on about. It is your job as the writer to make it clear.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Glider

It is your job as the writer to make it clear.

 

unless you are talking philosophy or humanities.

 

I did a course on 'scientific writing' and most of what the people who studied scientific writing said, could be collapsed from 2 sides to a paragraph without much effort.

[Guest Meninger]

It was not intended to be an "ingenious" work.

 

Which brings me to question some of your intentions and motivations for criticisms in participating in these forums.

 

I am not a man of controversy and I hate taking part in useless arguments; which most of you seem to enjoy.

 

I am guessing that most of you are at a young age; since it is common for people at this age to "role play" in a mindless fashion. Mindless in the sense that it is evident that the criticisms seem to primarily be made for the popular consideration; that is for self-validation and for the validation of others. It's funny that one thought that I was depressed and then proceeded to derail me more than others;) I understand, it is all just part of an social emotional orgy you guys are having. Too bad I am not included.

 

I hope that at least some of you heard of essays in the form of "stream of consciousness."

 

No, it was not an article from "nature."

 

It seems that a lot of you are waiting for an "ingenious" article to save you from your boring conversations.

 

Either that, you just enjoy making unconstructive criticisms.

 

Nevertheless, I did appreciate the comments.

 

You guys are right, the article was not filled with continuous insights. Congratulations geniuses, perhaps some of you would like to elaborate further on this.

 

The essay was less than a page long; it was more like a journal entry. I do acknowledge that my writing skills are not exactly perfect; I am trying to improve.

 

It was a mistake of mine to put this article under the psychology section of my website. It was supposed to be more of a poem in a sense; a symbolic idea of why, for example, human beings treasure moments of fame, moments of romatic love, moments of achievement.

 

I just thought it was a bit ironical that individuals who seem to have their lives filled with these "moments" are the one's who don't exactly enjoy, or indulge in it.

 

Most individuals seem to strive for the pleasures that involve increased self-awareness; such as in being at the center of attention. Pleasures that involve somewhat of a "conscious" experience. Nevertheless, some individuals don't seem to be attracted to this subtype of pleasure; and it seems that people with this type of personality structure/characteristic are more efficient in handling problems. They don't enjoy life as much, but yet they don't have as much problems. It seems that it is in their genetic nature rather than their personal philosophy to live life this way.

 

Partially, my point was this. I feel that there is no advantage in seeking these pleasures of self-awareness (in other words, the extreme pleasures). It seems that in the presents days, movies as well as books, and the general ideology seem to emphasize this. Obtain romatic love, obtain status with the subtle idea that one would obtain something invaluable by attaining it. I feel that there is no long term psychological benefits in doing so (notice that I said long term).

 

I wanted to portray that it is also difficult in living without these pleasures, however, even if one attains them it seems to be of no use; and thus the paradox. My central point was to ask the question of how can man avoid these tendencies. This is also related to my theological question of whether it is the will of God that we realize this (assuming that there is a God); in the sense that it seems right in regard to the contexts of human nature.

The preacher, the politician, the philosopher claims, studies, or emphasizes this issue. Seek the ultimate good, seek the ultimate.......seek immortality, seek an experience with God. Yet in every sense the things we tend to do seems to be of a paradoxical nature. It is the question of whether we are "supposed" to attain any equilibrium state at all. And if this equilibrium state should be fueled by human ambition, covered up ambition (in the form of righteous morality), or an learned insight into the true nature of humility. If anything, I believe that the will of God will be associated with providence. And if there is anything that we are to learn, we can learn it from the path in which we were originally placed; the path to humility, we are destined to fail. This idea challenges my innate notion that God wants us to self-actualize, and that we are to self-actualize in terms of a psychological perspective (it is in our interest for our mental health).

 

 

DocBill,

 

since you seem to be so interested in theology, I am surprised that you did not pick this out.

[Sayonara]

Meninger, nobody is deliberately attacking you for the hell of it.

 

You have to understand that the majority of people here - especially the regular posters - have been trained to a high level in the sciences.

 

We're bound to be overly critical. It's what we do.

 

[Glider]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

unless you are talking philosophy or humanities.

Ohhh yeah...I forgot about them

 

I did a course on 'scientific writing' and most of what the people who studied scientific writing said, could be collapsed from 2 sides to a paragraph without much effort.

Yeah...that sounds about right. It is a problem though. I have to teach people how to write scientific essays and research reports and stuff. It's always easier to do, than it is to explain. Think (for example), about making a cup of coffee...easy peasy huh? Now try to write instructions on making a cup of coffee whilst assuming that your reader has no prior knowledge of kettles and taps and things. That's where it gets tricky (and very long winded).

[Glider]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Meninger, nobody is deliberately attacking you for the hell of it.

 

You have to understand that the majority of people here - especially the regular posters - have been trained to a high level in the sciences.

 

We're bound to be overly critical. It's what we do.

Exactly. And if you post such a 'stream of consciousness' in the psychology sub-forum of the medical sciences page (especially when the theme appears to be depression), you have to accept that it's probably going to be evaluated critically as a comment on depression (i.e. dysthymic disorders) as opposed to a general theological/philosophical muse.

 

Sorry about the dribbling moron thing by the way. Tough day...idiot students..etc...etc... and I obviously picked up the smelly end of the stick regarding your post.

[DocBill]

Originally posted by Meninger

It was not intended to be an "ingenious" work.

DocBill,

since you seem to be so interested in theology, I am surprised that you did not pick this out.

 

Ah yes. That. Wellll. Sufice it to say that:

 

1. I TOO do not wish for a senseless debate;

 

2. After my first doctorate (in theology) I learned a few things.

 

So..did I "miss" anything? No. BUT..did I feel it was worth mentioning. Again. No.

 

Interesting article however.

 

Bill