Finding Meaning & Delivering Confessions
Replies
-
This ... this ... this is beautiful. The writer in me is in tears, it's so beautiful.You didn't actually submit research for your biography. You submitted a large, awkward, random assemblage of sentences. In fact, the sentences you apparently kidnapped in the dead of night and forced into this violent and arbitrary plan of yours clearly seemed to be placed on the thread against their will. Reading your post(s)/responses was like watching unfamiliar, uncomfortable people interact at a cocktail party that no one wanted to attend in the first place. You didn't submit research. You submitted a hostage situation.
Unf.0 -
I like philosophy as well as reading about psychological deviations.
But *kitten* son, reading you or the "book" idea you have is like you are wanking off to a mirror, just you getting turned on by you.0 -
TLDR
What is your I.Q.?
I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers. ~ Steven Hawking
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12QUESTIONS.html?_r=00 -
As you mature, you will find that these "over-excitabilities" are less of a special gift - everybody gets fired up about something - and more of a challenge experienced by people who are young and not particularly emotionally mature.0
-
Sounds like these "over-excitabilities" are bit like premature mental ejaculation then.As you mature, you will find that these "over-excitabilities" are less of a special gift - everybody gets fired up about something - and more of a challenge experienced by people who are young and not particularly emotionally mature.0 -
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
Socrates
That is Philosophy 101. Start there.0 -
You are sooo boring. I knew a guy like you on another message board. If you want satisfaction, sit in a corner and talk to yourself. You'll always like what you hear that way.
I love the above post
soo many piss filled white breads on the internet trying to masquerade as french toast0 -
420
-
You are sooo boring. I knew a guy like you on another message board. If you want satisfaction, sit in a corner and talk to yourself. You'll always like what you hear that way.
I love the above post
soo many piss filled white breads on the internet trying to masquerade as french toast
Wouldn't that make the bread yellow?0 -
You are sooo boring. I knew a guy like you on another message board. If you want satisfaction, sit in a corner and talk to yourself. You'll always like what you hear that way.
I love the above post
soo many piss filled white breads on the internet trying to masquerade as french toast
Don't eat the yellow bread?
Wouldn't that make the bread yellow?0 -
Meh. . . .me too.<<<< walking away
:-D0 -
You didn't actually submit research for your biography. You submitted a large, awkward, random assemblage of sentences. In fact, the sentences you apparently kidnapped in the dead of night and forced into this violent and arbitrary plan of yours clearly seemed to be placed on the thread against their will. Reading your post(s)/responses was like watching unfamiliar, uncomfortable people interact at a cocktail party that no one wanted to attend in the first place. You didn't submit research. You submitted a hostage situation.
No, no..I regret bringing up the biography - none of that had anything to do with this.
^I like your point though - things should be elaborated more basically for everyone since I'm specifically trying to hit the average person and wake up or at least communicate with his 'self'. No, this was simply to get - and I thought it was super clear on my 1st post - simply to know if positive disintegration could be taken seriously by the gifted and if any of the gifted had already stumbled on to existential philosophy as a coping mechanism for dealing with the absurdity and void.
Honestly, positive disintegration looks like a sophomoric attempt to appear "special."
You might want to check out Mezirow's Transformative Learning Theory - though I haven't seen that it has more real-world application than straight up Cognitive/Constructivist Learning Theories.
^haslow was friends with Dabrowski and he appreciated the idea. I will look into Mezirow's transformative learning theory.
Really, though, you can just tell adults "this is why you need to know this" and they'll take care of the transformative thing themselves. Occasionally, after a couple of pilots, there are times where you notice that people assume that understand the concept more than they do, but that's mostly going to be taken care of if you provide sufficient practice and feedback.
The levels described in positive disintegration seem to be pretty pedestrian - most people I know who are over the age of 30 have addressed all of these to a basic degree, except they don't require manic-depression to make this happen.
smh.. this is for personality development for the gifted. - naturally sure some people can find a sense of themselves - when they are getting older and older, however the development of the individual is much more rapid due to the rate and ability of processing information and seeing it's applied use.
knowing 'yourself' having an identity at a young age is a tremendous difference from that of your peers - And to be fair 30 would be pretty young to have an identity as well.
I specifically posted this requesting people that would be familiar with this information BTW - I was requesting the input of the gifted, genius, those that display overexcitabilities and psychologist and philosophers. I specifically said that those that are coasting through life average - and there is nothing wrong with being average - they would not understand and would hurt the discussion. Which in a sense I feel they did.0 -
You didn't actually submit research for your biography. You submitted a large, awkward, random assemblage of sentences. In fact, the sentences you apparently kidnapped in the dead of night and forced into this violent and arbitrary plan of yours clearly seemed to be placed on the thread against their will. Reading your post(s)/responses was like watching unfamiliar, uncomfortable people interact at a cocktail party that no one wanted to attend in the first place. You didn't submit research. You submitted a hostage situation.
No, no..I regret bringing up the biography - none of that had anything to do with this.
^I like your point though - things should be elaborated more basically for everyone since I'm specifically trying to hit the average person and wake up or at least communicate with his 'self'. No, this was simply to get - and I thought it was super clear on my 1st post - simply to know if positive disintegration could be taken seriously by the gifted and if any of the gifted had already stumbled on to existential philosophy as a coping mechanism for dealing with the absurdity and void.
Honestly, positive disintegration looks like a sophomoric attempt to appear "special."
You might want to check out Mezirow's Transformative Learning Theory - though I haven't seen that it has more real-world application than straight up Cognitive/Constructivist Learning Theories.
'sophomoric attempt' - ironically in a sense I thought the simplicity would aid in its being taken more seriously and being easier for individuals to apply.
I see your point though, harsh expression - but I see your point.
I think for those that struggle with overexcitabilities.. I mean idk - its hard to explain, we can be a little tough for the average person to live with. And I don't know about even living with another gifted person - I have gifted friends, sure - and aside from ONE - they subscribe to nihilism and are the biggest pessimist you ever met, with anxiety issues you prob could not relate to, even I can't relate to the panic attacks they get hit with when thinking about the existential crisis. I mean I can feel the void when I focus on it - like mortality. I had drank myself into a coma when I was 16, woke up handcuffed to a hospital bed with a catheter (unpleasant feeling) and had my first kick in the mouth that I WILL DIE. - this isn't some pointless discussion - I honestly believe this ideology can help people. Someone that believes in nihilism not only with their mental faculty but also with their heart - they can be suicidal and just so negative. IDK I truly feel I can help craft a difference by providing them a sense of purpose. What I'm really really stuck on is forming all my arguments concerning determinism.0 -
I should say, rather, that he's using terms and referencing psychologists and philosophers that only those who have specifically studied them will know about. Either way, he's asking people to do extra work in order to give him free information.
The thing is that no matter how gifted a person is, that person only knows what that person has been educated on. And not everyone, no matter their intelligence, is familiar with philosophy and psychology at the level you're speaking. So you're speaking down to anyone who isn't an expert on those things, either by profession, formal education or simply reading about it out of interest.You didn't actually submit research for your biography. You submitted a large, awkward, random assemblage of sentences. In fact, the sentences you apparently kidnapped in the dead of night and forced into this violent and arbitrary plan of yours clearly seemed to be placed on the thread against their will. Reading your post(s)/responses was like watching unfamiliar, uncomfortable people interact at a cocktail party that no one wanted to attend in the first place. You didn't submit research. You submitted a hostage situation.
No, no..I regret bringing up the biography - none of that had anything to do with this.
^I like your point though - things should be elaborated more basically for everyone since I'm specifically trying to hit the average person and wake up or at least communicate with his 'self'. No, this was simply to get - and I thought it was super clear on my 1st post - simply to know if positive disintegration could be taken seriously by the gifted and if any of the gifted had already stumbled on to existential philosophy as a coping mechanism for dealing with the absurdity and void.
I am not at that level, though looking things up made them clear enough to understand the concepts. I shouldn't have had to do that work. You wanted something from people and then asked them to do extra work to give it to you. The only reason I did is that I'm naturally curious and I like to learn new things.
He's not speaking of them at a particularly high level. It's coming off as very autodiadactic and not very seasoned. If he did have the advanced level understanding that he pretends to want to engage at, he would be able to present simple points in simple ways. And he'd probably find the MFP audience to be boring as they wouldn't have the context to respond in a way to take the thoughts to the next level.
ETA - Updated with better term.
yep! Lucky for me the drive to learn & learn also runs through smarties who are willing to aid in the work.
True though - all though I have taken great pains not to use any jargon, however I guess I came off as very wordy in doing so.
Such a fine balance - I'm working on finding that golden mean.0 -
I think you're taking lots of liberties making sweeping judgments and presumptions about how people live their lives. Because they're not sitting around pondering Nietzsche, they are simply "waiting for the next weekend [so they can] waste it away doing nothing."
Sadly, I was begging for a denouncement - yet I received NONE.
people were pulling YOU apart left and right.
if what you really wanted them to examine were the ideas of the pyschologists or philosophers you mentioned, your going to get almost none of that because of the arogant, snide atmosphere of your OP
^ I think in actuality - I'm talking in constructs - abstracts - there is simply not a capacity for them to even understand because they have no true 'self' to even have internal dialogue and debate about my points. - they are stuck in a collective and can't see the folly in it - in fact they can't see much of anything. To them life is simply waiting to the next weekend where they can waste it away doing nothing, and they also drive on for the two weeks of PTO each year to sit on a beach or mountain and once again simply waste away and die. They have no idea of their true mortality. They have no idea of how temporary this life is for them and how fast time will begin to move once they realize in their internal clock the percentages are going to be getting much less and less.
Money, power, family, relationships, friends, food, knowledge, even happiness itself - its all vain.
They are already to accept death because they never accepted life.
I slogged through Nietzsche in my grad courses and analyzed well enough to earn my MA in English; it was interesting reading, but to the laymen definitely complex and mind boggling at times; however, I got through it. It's definitely not something I'd do for the sheer entertainment value.
I'm not going to start a fire here too much other than to say speak for yourself, because as a Christian my life every day has purpose--everyday, a lesson to be learned, and everyday I am reminded of my humility as a servant and a conduit for Christ to follow his path of righteousness, and to be good to my fellow man. Nothing is ever in vain if I can learn something from the experience and be better because of it.0 -
OP, you speak of Nietzsche. Didn't he say something along the lines of, "If you gaze long enough into the abyss, the abyss gazes back at you?"
Well, you gazed long enough. And the abyss just gazed back and said, "Dude, go to sleep."0 -
I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.0 -
I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.
There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.0 -
I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.
There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.0 -
I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.
There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.
Walk the halls of any elite law firm, investment fund, or investment bank in this country and your views will change. You're handicapping children from middle and lower class backgrounds with this view, and instead you should be helping them build those skills. They are learned like any other skill. If you don't believe me, spend some time at a place like Boys & Girls Club.0 -
I'm doing the best I can; however, it's pretty difficult with 40 to a class and the demands of common core, testing, graduation rates, admin expectations, behavior--let's not even go there, and the paper load that accompanies teaching English. I think also you are talking about changing a cultural worldview, which is pretty damn difficult for a teacher for a 50 min. period a day. I work with a large immigrant population, about 88% or so, I think, last I checked and changes are happening, but it's very slow coming.
I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.
There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.
Walk the halls of any elite law firm, investment fund, or investment bank in this country and your views will change. You're handicapping children from middle and lower class backgrounds with this view, and instead you should be helping them build those skills. They are learned like any other skill. If you don't believe me, spend some time at a place like Boys & Girls Club.
Nevertheless, I love what I do and love witnessing the growth in my students, and to me that's a win, each and every time.
I challenge you to teach a High school class in an urban, inner city area for one day and it may change your perception. I came in eleven years ago wanting to change the world--all Freedom Writer's style-talk about delusional-sure those kinds of changes can happen at an inner city high school, but what are you willing to give up? Your marriage? Your social life? I don't have much to begin with...Family time? It's definitely not a job for the faint of heart.0 -
I'm doing the best I can; however, it's pretty difficult with 40 to a class and the demands of common core, testing, graduation rates, admin expectations, and the paper load that accompanies teaching English. I think also you are talking about changing a cultural worldview, which is pretty damn difficult for a teacher for a 50 min. period a day. I work with a large immigrant population, about 88% or so, I think, last I checked and changes are happening, but it's very slow coming.
I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.
There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.
Walk the halls of any elite law firm, investment fund, or investment bank in this country and your views will change. You're handicapping children from middle and lower class backgrounds with this view, and instead you should be helping them build those skills. They are learned like any other skill. If you don't believe me, spend some time at a place like Boys & Girls Club.
Nevertheless, I love what I do and love witnessing the growth in my students, and to me that's a win, each and every time.
Just be careful not to project the stereotypes onto your students. Well rounded students are the most equipped for success and if you can help, or at least not hinder that, then do so0 -
As I said, doing my best--culture is pervasive, and I am but one part of the equation.
I'm doing the best I can; however, it's pretty difficult with 40 to a class and the demands of common core, testing, graduation rates, admin expectations, and the paper load that accompanies teaching English. I think also you are talking about changing a cultural worldview, which is pretty damn difficult for a teacher for a 50 min. period a day. I work with a large immigrant population, about 88% or so, I think, last I checked and changes are happening, but it's very slow coming.
I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.
There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.
Walk the halls of any elite law firm, investment fund, or investment bank in this country and your views will change. You're handicapping children from middle and lower class backgrounds with this view, and instead you should be helping them build those skills. They are learned like any other skill. If you don't believe me, spend some time at a place like Boys & Girls Club.
Nevertheless, I love what I do and love witnessing the growth in my students, and to me that's a win, each and every time.
Just be careful not to project the stereotypes onto your students. Well rounded students are the most equipped for success and if you can help, or at least not hinder that, then do so0 -
LOL this made my life.0
-
I think you're taking lots of liberties making sweeping judgments and presumptions about how people live their lives. Because they're not sitting around pondering Nietzsche, they are simply "waiting for the next weekend [so they can] waste it away doing nothing."
Sadly, I was begging for a denouncement - yet I received NONE.
people were pulling YOU apart left and right.
if what you really wanted them to examine were the ideas of the pyschologists or philosophers you mentioned, your going to get almost none of that because of the arogant, snide atmosphere of your OP
^ I think in actuality - I'm talking in constructs - abstracts - there is simply not a capacity for them to even understand because they have no true 'self' to even have internal dialogue and debate about my points. - they are stuck in a collective and can't see the folly in it - in fact they can't see much of anything. To them life is simply waiting to the next weekend where they can waste it away doing nothing, and they also drive on for the two weeks of PTO each year to sit on a beach or mountain and once again simply waste away and die. They have no idea of their true mortality. They have no idea of how temporary this life is for them and how fast time will begin to move once they realize in their internal clock the percentages are going to be getting much less and less.
Money, power, family, relationships, friends, food, knowledge, even happiness itself - its all vain.
They are already to accept death because they never accepted life.
I slogged through Nietzsche in my grad courses and analyzed well enough to earn my MA in English; it was interesting reading, but to the laymen definitely complex and mind boggling at times; however, I got through it. It's definitely not something I'd do for the sheer entertainment value.
I'm not going to start a fire here too much other than to say speak for yourself, because as a Christian my life every day has purpose--everyday, a lesson to be learned, and everyday I am reminded of my humility as a servant and a conduit for Christ to follow his path of righteousness, and to be good to my fellow man. Nothing is ever in vain if I can learn something from the experience and be better because of it.
^Christianity - respectfully is such a hindrance in regards towards the need of becoming the ideal in this life- because there will most likely be no 'resurrected body', the idea of knowledge and good&evil growing off a true-prevents people from creating their own virtue. I could poke more holes in the cathartic belief then you could imagine - HOWEVER I don't believe Christianity is 'bad' - rather, it provides a sense of purpose to people.
Fortunately if you want to worship a God who upon feeling jealous wipes out entire civilizations and who advises that the entire purpose of your life is to 'glorify him' despite his creation of world full of pain and suffering - I got news!
His narrative is no different then that of ill-mannered monsters like Kim Jong-un.
On top of that you're are forced to be a determinist because with God being omniscient - you would have to live up to his foreknowledge - or as Paul said the predestination.
I say that respectfully, in no way would I want to take away the belief of God because it does no harm to me - it is however I believe a language virus in the brain that dulls critical thinking.
For the curious on why not to believe just some brief points:
exodus 32:14 - God is 'all knowing' yet his mind can be changed? o.O
Judges 11 - human sacrifice Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God over a promise he foolishly made.
Jude references the book of Enoch in Jude 6-7
Genesis 6:1-6 basically quotes the book of Enoch verbatim
Christ referred to himself as the 'son of man', he was well versed in the Book of Enoch- and only in the book of Enoch was the 'son of man' a reference for the Messiah - which Christ was alluding towards and the prophecy made in it.
1 Enoch 46:1–4, 48:2–7, 69:26–29 -
worth mentioning the son of man was an expression referring only to man through out the entire old testament
So what is such a big deal about the book of Enoch?
Have you read the book of Enoch? In Genesis 6 it talks of angels mating with women and creating a race of Giants - which Enoch says:
Chapter 6 Book of Enoch Jubilees 5
1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.
2 And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men
3 and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not
4 indeed agree to do this deed, and
I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said:
'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations
5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves
6 by mutual imprecations upon it.
And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn
( See The Book of Giants.)
(See the story of Genun: the Jubal story)
7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal,
8 Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaqlel, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens.
Chapter 7
1 And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one,
and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms
2 and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they
3 became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed
4 all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against
5 them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and
6 fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.
You can believe all of that^ I mean it is in Genesis - your Bible after all and referred once again to in Jude - it is why Jude says some demons are stuck in hell and others can roam the earth - he also alludes towards the fact that when the Angels visited Lot the city wanted to rape the angels but Lot sent out his daughters to be raped by the city (This was before Lots daughters got Lot drunk and raped him and got pregnant).
Why I have such a problem with this is simply - three thousand ells - that is 5,160ft - that is practically double the tallest building in the world.
I mean I can go on...
We have Daniel chapter 14 prior to it's extraction saying Daniel killed a dragon by feeding it pitch and tar- a story totally hijacked.
We have Deuteronomy 21:10-14 -10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her."
^permitting the rape of women as long as you shave her head after slaying her family on the battlefield.
We have the Counsel of Nicaea 325 - which created the hypostatic union, but it also paved the way for Athanasius to become an early church figure - the most powerful man in the world - because he structured the New Testiment during his power trip lasting from then (age like 25-30) till his release of 'Festel letter 367' - which was the NT
^Of course scholars at the time disagreed on the cannon of the Bible, which is why different denominations have different text - regardless I find all of this - and this is just points I'm pulling from memory so if someone would like more I by all means can provide them - but I find all this unsettling.0 -
I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.
^wow.. absolutely terrible. My youngest brother is also gifted, and thank God he will be being sent to a place where they can enable him to explore many different area's of his life. The idea that just because communication with peers who lack the depth of understanding as negating from the ability of the intellectual - go figure.
School should be a place where they become comfortable with lots of different area's and tasks, where the teacher encourages thinking and diversity to make the person informed about tons of different area's - maybe not an expert in all, but wise enough to have a convo about it.
And I disagree about your thoughts on being able to communicate with the 'big bad world' - I communicate perfectly with people in my role because I deal with so many executives through my selling process. For the vast majority of the cases in my sales experience the executives are gifted, or at least exceptionally bright - so communicating is not a problem for me, nor for them. And obviously I can communicate with normal people - they simply don't pick up on a great deal of my wit and glib because it just goes over their head.
The idea as well that the gifted lack interpersonal skills - in some cases I would grant that, and in some people - but overall we tend to be the center of attention. I create laughter and smiles everywhere I go, every client I visit - hardly sounds like someone lacking in interpersonal skills - we have a much more keen awareness of others feelings and body language so empathy comes incredibly naturally to us.
I can't believe how little they train teachers on how to teach gifted or genius children. Not saying you personally are a bad teacher - but you should be there equipping them to be well-versed in everything.
But no worries, I'm sure you pray for your students so all will be well.
0 -
As I said, doing my best--culture is pervasive, and I am but one part of the equation.
I'm doing the best I can; however, it's pretty difficult with 40 to a class and the demands of common core, testing, graduation rates, admin expectations, and the paper load that accompanies teaching English. I think also you are talking about changing a cultural worldview, which is pretty damn difficult for a teacher for a 50 min. period a day. I work with a large immigrant population, about 88% or so, I think, last I checked and changes are happening, but it's very slow coming.
I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.
There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.
Walk the halls of any elite law firm, investment fund, or investment bank in this country and your views will change. You're handicapping children from middle and lower class backgrounds with this view, and instead you should be helping them build those skills. They are learned like any other skill. If you don't believe me, spend some time at a place like Boys & Girls Club.
Nevertheless, I love what I do and love witnessing the growth in my students, and to me that's a win, each and every time.
Just be careful not to project the stereotypes onto your students. Well rounded students are the most equipped for success and if you can help, or at least not hinder that, then do so
Looks like this discussion already took place.
I think you are sincere! Sincerity and being genuine does speak volumes to children. :flowerforyou:0 -
I should say, rather, that he's using terms and referencing psychologists and philosophers that only those who have specifically studied them will know about. Either way, he's asking people to do extra work in order to give him free information.
The thing is that no matter how gifted a person is, that person only knows what that person has been educated on. And not everyone, no matter their intelligence, is familiar with philosophy and psychology at the level you're speaking. So you're speaking down to anyone who isn't an expert on those things, either by profession, formal education or simply reading about it out of interest.You didn't actually submit research for your biography. You submitted a large, awkward, random assemblage of sentences. In fact, the sentences you apparently kidnapped in the dead of night and forced into this violent and arbitrary plan of yours clearly seemed to be placed on the thread against their will. Reading your post(s)/responses was like watching unfamiliar, uncomfortable people interact at a cocktail party that no one wanted to attend in the first place. You didn't submit research. You submitted a hostage situation.
No, no..I regret bringing up the biography - none of that had anything to do with this.
^I like your point though - things should be elaborated more basically for everyone since I'm specifically trying to hit the average person and wake up or at least communicate with his 'self'. No, this was simply to get - and I thought it was super clear on my 1st post - simply to know if positive disintegration could be taken seriously by the gifted and if any of the gifted had already stumbled on to existential philosophy as a coping mechanism for dealing with the absurdity and void.
I am not at that level, though looking things up made them clear enough to understand the concepts. I shouldn't have had to do that work. You wanted something from people and then asked them to do extra work to give it to you. The only reason I did is that I'm naturally curious and I like to learn new things.
He's not speaking of them at a particularly high level. It's coming off as very autodiadactic and not very seasoned. If he did have the advanced level understanding that he pretends to want to engage at, he would be able to present simple points in simple ways. And he'd probably find the MFP audience to be boring as they wouldn't have the context to respond in a way to take the thoughts to the next level.
ETA - Updated with better term.
yep! Lucky for me the drive to learn & learn also runs through smarties who are willing to aid in the work.
True though - all though I have taken great pains not to use any jargon, however I guess I came off as very wordy in doing so.
Such a fine balance - I'm working on finding that golden mean.
You need to try writing out your idea and then putting them away for a week or two and refining them. Your inability to describe your focus simply points to a shallow understanding of your subject areas.
One of the brightest people I know - truly a comprehensive grasp of EVERYTHING and a real skill in interpersonal relationships - is able to help me understand economics, a field I struggle with, though JayZ lyrics and a range of youtube videos. He's able to see the relationship between the mundane and the profound, so he can help anybody interested to walk that path. That's what real depth of understanding looks like.0 -
That's very sad, I will pray for you.
I think you're taking lots of liberties making sweeping judgments and presumptions about how people live their lives. Because they're not sitting around pondering Nietzsche, they are simply "waiting for the next weekend [so they can] waste it away doing nothing."
Sadly, I was begging for a denouncement - yet I received NONE.
people were pulling YOU apart left and right.
if what you really wanted them to examine were the ideas of the pyschologists or philosophers you mentioned, your going to get almost none of that because of the arogant, snide atmosphere of your OP
^ I think in actuality - I'm talking in constructs - abstracts - there is simply not a capacity for them to even understand because they have no true 'self' to even have internal dialogue and debate about my points. - they are stuck in a collective and can't see the folly in it - in fact they can't see much of anything. To them life is simply waiting to the next weekend where they can waste it away doing nothing, and they also drive on for the two weeks of PTO each year to sit on a beach or mountain and once again simply waste away and die. They have no idea of their true mortality. They have no idea of how temporary this life is for them and how fast time will begin to move once they realize in their internal clock the percentages are going to be getting much less and less.
Money, power, family, relationships, friends, food, knowledge, even happiness itself - its all vain.
They are already to accept death because they never accepted life.
I slogged through Nietzsche in my grad courses and analyzed well enough to earn my MA in English; it was interesting reading, but to the laymen definitely complex and mind boggling at times; however, I got through it. It's definitely not something I'd do for the sheer entertainment value.
I'm not going to start a fire here too much other than to say speak for yourself, because as a Christian my life every day has purpose--everyday, a lesson to be learned, and everyday I am reminded of my humility as a servant and a conduit for Christ to follow his path of righteousness, and to be good to my fellow man. Nothing is ever in vain if I can learn something from the experience and be better because of it.
^Christianity - respectfully is such a hindrance in regards towards the need of becoming the ideal in this life- because there will most likely be no 'resurrected body', the idea of knowledge and good&evil growing off a true-prevents people from creating their own virtue. I could poke more holes in the cathartic belief then you could imagine - HOWEVER I don't believe Christianity is 'bad' - rather, it provides a sense of purpose to people.
Fortunately if you want to worship a God who upon feeling jealous wipes out entire civilizations and who advises that the entire purpose of your life is to 'glorify him' despite his creation of world full of pain and suffering - I got news!
His narrative is no different then that of ill-mannered monsters like Kim Jong-un.
On top of that you're are forced to be a determinist because with God being omniscient - you would have to live up to his foreknowledge - or as Paul said the predestination.
I say that respectfully, in no way would I want to take away the belief of God because it does no harm to me - it is however I believe a language virus in the brain that dulls critical thinking.
For the curious on why not to believe just some brief points:
exodus 32:14 - God is 'all knowing' yet his mind can be changed? o.O
Judges 11 - human sacrifice Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God over a promise he foolishly made.
Jude references the book of Enoch in Jude 6-7
Genesis 6:1-6 basically quotes the book of Enoch verbatim
Christ referred to himself as the 'son of man', he was well versed in the Book of Enoch- and only in the book of Enoch was the 'son of man' a reference for the Messiah - which Christ was alluding towards and the prophecy made in it.
1 Enoch 46:1–4, 48:2–7, 69:26–29 -
worth mentioning the son of man was an expression referring only to man through out the entire old testament
So what is such a big deal about the book of Enoch?
Have you read the book of Enoch? In Genesis 6 it talks of angels mating with women and creating a race of Giants - which Enoch says:
Chapter 6 Book of Enoch Jubilees 5
1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.
2 And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men
3 and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not
4 indeed agree to do this deed, and
I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said:
'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations
5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves
6 by mutual imprecations upon it.
And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn
( See The Book of Giants.)
(See the story of Genun: the Jubal story)
7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal,
8 Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaqlel, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens.
Chapter 7
1 And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one,
and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms
2 and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they
3 became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed
4 all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against
5 them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and
6 fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.
You can believe all of that^ I mean it is in Genesis - your Bible after all and referred once again to in Jude - it is why Jude says some demons are stuck in hell and others can roam the earth - he also alludes towards the fact that when the Angels visited Lot the city wanted to rape the angels but Lot sent out his daughters to be raped by the city (This was before Lots daughters got Lot drunk and raped him and got pregnant).
Why I have such a problem with this is simply - three thousand ells - that is 5,160ft - that is practically double the tallest building in the world.
I mean I can go on...
We have Daniel chapter 14 prior to it's extraction saying Daniel killed a dragon by feeding it pitch and tar- a story totally hijacked.
We have Deuteronomy 21:10-14 -10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her."
^permitting the rape of women as long as you shave her head after slaying her family on the battlefield.
We have the Counsel of Nicaea 325 - which created the hypostatic union, but it also paved the way for Athanasius to become an early church figure - the most powerful man in the world - because he structured the New Testiment during his power trip lasting from then (age like 25-30) till his release of 'Festel letter 367' - which was the NT
^Of course scholars at the time disagreed on the cannon of the Bible, which is why different denominations have different text - regardless I find all of this - and this is just points I'm pulling from memory so if someone would like more I by all means can provide them - but I find all this unsettling.0 -
I do. . . Everyday, and prayers for you too brother.I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.
^wow.. absolutely terrible. My youngest brother is also gifted, and thank God he will be being sent to a place where they can enable him to explore many different area's of his life. The idea that just because communication with peers who lack the depth of understanding as negating from the ability of the intellectual - go figure.
School should be a place where they become comfortable with lots of different area's and tasks, where the teacher encourages thinking and diversity to make the person informed about tons of different area's - maybe not an expert in all, but wise enough to have a convo about it.
And I disagree about your thoughts on being able to communicate with the 'big bad world' - I communicate perfectly with people in my role because I deal with so many executives through my selling process. For the vast majority of the cases in my sales experience the executives are gifted, or at least exceptionally bright - so communicating is not a problem for me, nor for them. And obviously I can communicate with normal people - they simply don't pick up on a great deal of my wit and glib because it just goes over their head.
The idea as well that the gifted lack interpersonal skills - in some cases I would grant that, and in some people - but overall we tend to be the center of attention. I create laughter and smiles everywhere I go, every client I visit - hardly sounds like someone lacking in interpersonal skills - we have a much more keen awareness of others feelings and body language so empathy comes incredibly naturally to us.
I can't believe how little they train teachers on how to teach gifted or genius children. Not saying you personally are a bad teacher - but you should be there equipping them to be well-versed in everything.
But no worries, I'm sure you pray for your students so all will be well.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions