Well choke me with a Pirogy, why don't cha?

Posted by
Sparrow on Feb 11, 2002 at 09:41
13.a.arbros.nb.net (209.161.68.38)

Re: Love Follows Natural Laws (Eudaemonic Pie)

(Pirogies are this Hunky's go and grow food -- mostly the latter. Horizontally! )

Been stopped up THAT long, huh, EP? Feels better, I betcha -- go have a cigarette, as we used to say. FOUR pages of 10-point print! Has GOT to be a SAGG record for non-cut and paste!

We've gots several problems. You're throwing around ideas and concepts of a philosopher/geneticist (epigenesis, reification) that you're very used to, and this po' hunky can barely find in the dictionary. Second is that you appear to lack the maturity of a wise atheist to be open to a subjective discussion objectively (did that come out right?) -- What I'm saying here is that while I definitely have my biases, I am learning to listen to and consider ideas that I don't agree with and cooly discuss them and walk away from the discussion in mutual regard and esteem for each other, no matter how wrong they are! (LOL!!!). I have, a number of times, backed a discussion away from matters theological when (ahem!) others have tried to build straw arguments and rabbit trails in that direction (if the shoe fits, wear it, readers -- but let's not do that right now in this thread, OK?. In point of example, anyone who says that a "Lover" and "Beloved" relationship between husband and wife is "psychotic" has some issues, I'd think most people would say -- that's pretty far out and not very wise, by most people's standards. Care to elucidate the statement, EP? Uncle Sparrow will listen....)

Let's clarify a confusion that I created inadvertently. I am not a pediatric physician, I am (primarily) a pediatric/developmental optometrist who specializes in remediating learning disabilities. Since I can demonstrate neuropsychological changes in the BRAIN (using the Stroop, a remarkably simple test that robustly resists change otherwise), I have defined (and had published) what we developmentalists do as being "neurodevelopmental optometry", since we developmentally change the BRAIN. 'Zat clear?

Let's get back to the original thread -- I said that Fear of loss of control, and, I now add, perhaps even Fear of death, is a significant factor (not just the altruistic aspects) in the environmentalist motivations. Let's get back to talking to that at some point, OK?

Should I capitalize the words Fear, Trust, Person, Integrity, Love, Truth? As an absolutist, I prefer that designation to those Very Important Words. There is, somewhere in this Cosmos, a bottom-line quality the concept of truth, and I designate it "Truth". The same for each of the rest of those. Just because we may not have experienced those qualities ourselves is no reason to deny their existance -- a mistake too many people make. There are MANY things that I have not experienced in this Cosmos, but that does not mean that they do not exist, just that--simplistic as this may look--that I have yet to experience them. That does not mean I shut my mind to their existence. If you haven't experienced a Person who is of ultimate Integrity, Love, and Truth, worthy of our wholehearted Trust, then it is not an intelligent statement to ipsilaterally say that that Person does not exist, just that you have yet to experience Them/Him (!There he goes with those capitals, AGAIN!). The question is, are you open to that concept, or do you have mental and spiritual reasons/reservations to not want to consider that possibility? (With most people, in my experience, the barrier has to do with living responsibly, accountably to each other and the Person.)

Continuing Fear produces stress, stress produces distortions in systems, and in living organisms, systemic distortion means the very real possibility of altered physiology. Stress kills.

I've said this next here before, but let me repeat it -- there are three general ways that mankind responds to a stressor:

1) Change the environment (GET IT? -- kinda apropos, huh?) -- eliminate, control the stressor milieu.

2) Change one's feelings about the stressor.

3) Change one's understanding of the stress.

The first is a typically male response, and it can be successful, to an extent. The second is a typically female response, and it is the least successful, often resulting in stress-exacerbated dysfunctions. The third is the MOST successful of the three general responses to stress. It allows the least distortion in psycho-physiological processes.

I therefore conclude that attempts to control the global envirionment are--probably in large degree, in some individuals--an attempt to control their own Fear. (Plus you get all that "herd instinct" touchy-feely gooshy warmth fo belonging to a group...er.... -- GEE, DALE! -- almost RELIGION-ish! Maybe you're on to something!

Back to yunz!


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:


[ Forum ] [ New Message ]