Finding Meaning & Delivering Confessions

MrTolerable

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

^I will actually take you up on that idea. I know I have been doing that with major purchases now, I will walk up ready to get it - then decide if I can remember it in two weeks - I can get it with no reservation.

I'm hoping he is teaching you from the Austrian school of economics and none of that crazy Keynesianism crap.

likitisplit

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.

Well, I have a master's degree in Human Resource Development with a concentration in Instructional Design. This puts me at a research intersection between Cognitive Psycholology and Educational Science.

Previous to that, I did a year and a half of graduate work in Social Psychology - until I decided I couldn't face life teaching undergraduates while living in a small town. While I was mostly interested in social cognition and the human predisposition to evolve social norms within groups, the top journal in the field was the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP), so I had a lot of exposure to personality psychology.

You are thinking, which is good. What you are coming up with seems to be at a very basic undergraduate level, which is why I suggested finding a community of like-minded individuals, and an expert in the field to help direct your hypothesis.

I think you are overcomplicating humanity by a whole lot.

MrTolerable

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.

Well, I have a master's degree in Human Resource Development with a concentration in Instructional Design. This puts me at a research intersection between Cognitive Psycholology and Educational Science.

Previous to that, I did a year and a half of graduate work in Social Psychology - until I decided I couldn't face life teaching undergraduates while living in a small town. While I was mostly interested in social cognition and the human predisposition to evolve social norms within groups, the top journal in the field was the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP), so I had a lot of exposure to personality psychology.

You are thinking, which is good. What you are coming up with seems to be at a very basic undergraduate level, which is why I suggested finding a community of like-minded individuals, and an expert in the field to help direct your hypothesis.

I think you are overcomplicating humanity by a whole lot.

I have not said though what I have come up with.. And I have been purposely trying to keep this basic! lol while also being accused of not keeping this basic enough. I simply, wanted to make sure overexcitabilities are traits highly common in IQof130+ while inquiring about the age each person experienced their first existential crisis - how they managed to cope with it, and how they manage the overexcitabilities.

I also wanted to see if psychologist could take Dabrowski's thoughts seriously because I plan on expanding on them. What I have to add to nihilism and existentialism I have not even mentioned yet, nor can I because of fear someone will steal my work and write my book! However, I agree with you I need to find a community of like-minded individuals and get more in-depth input where I can jump to the meat of what I am inquiring about - because having to keep repeating myself and expounding on basic basic stuff is highly frustrating.

likitisplit

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.

Well, I have a master's degree in Human Resource Development with a concentration in Instructional Design. This puts me at a research intersection between Cognitive Psycholology and Educational Science.

Previous to that, I did a year and a half of graduate work in Social Psychology - until I decided I couldn't face life teaching undergraduates while living in a small town. While I was mostly interested in social cognition and the human predisposition to evolve social norms within groups, the top journal in the field was the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP), so I had a lot of exposure to personality psychology.

You are thinking, which is good. What you are coming up with seems to be at a very basic undergraduate level, which is why I suggested finding a community of like-minded individuals, and an expert in the field to help direct your hypothesis.

I think you are overcomplicating humanity by a whole lot.

I have not said though what I have come up with.. And I have been purposely trying to keep this basic! lol while also being accused of not keeping this basic enough. I simply, wanted to make sure overexcitabilities are traits highly common in IQof130+ while inquiring about the age each person experienced their first existential crisis - how they managed to cope with it, and how they manage the overexcitabilities.

I also wanted to see if psychologist could take Dabrowski's thoughts seriously because I plan on expanding on them. What I have to add to nihilism and existentialism I have not even mentioned yet, nor can I because of fear someone will steal my work and write my book! However, I agree with you I need to find a community of like-minded individuals and get more in-depth input where I can jump to the meat of what I am inquiring about - because having to keep repeating myself and expounding on basic basic stuff is highly frustrating.

Your first red flag is that it's not "mainstream." Which means that it has been glanced at by serious scientists who are interested in getting published in peer reviewed journals and discarded for more accepted research and theories.

Basically, it's saying that a select few go through a sort of internal breakdown to reach levels that aren't accessible by the rest of us...and that's just not the experience that these highly "over-excitable" scientists have with the world. If that theory would get a solid "YES" from anybody, it would be those nerds. It's not what they are seeing in the world, either in average people or the "gifted" (however we're happening to define that today).

While I've stayed the hell away from developmental and clinical psychology, I've had profound personal experiences that brought home Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development. It just works with what we see in the real world. Piaget gets supported with real world experiences. A few of Freud's ideas are still in circulation because they work. They predict what we find, they reflect what we see.

What Dabrowski sounds like are the awesome, wonderful, profound statements made on http://www.theicarusproject.net/

There are certain mental disorders that are associated with gifted, creative movers and shakers. And that different perspective is kind of awesome. And most people go through life experiences that change them and their outlook in profound ways, like parenthood for instance...a lot of people describe similar experiences in their blogs when they realize that their actions will never affect another person's point of view. But it doesn't seem to be either a sufficient or a necessary experience to be a gifted, creative mover/shaker.

The thing is, if I had a really great, innovative idea about social psychology where I looked at a body of research and created a testable idea that would add something to the field. And I described this on MFP - about 75% of the people here would say, "I don't know how you could prove that. I mean, everybody is so different." Sigh.

So, if I had such an idea, I'd go apply to Ohio State where I could get access to a community of peers that would understand the context of my rationale and would be able to suggest new avenues of research and pick holes in my ideas and provide everything that a community of peers would give.

I don't know of any professional psychology professor who would be all that interested in picking apart a random theory online without getting paid to do it as part of their duties.

No_Finish_Line

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.

so... you're telling us that you are very depressed?

No_Finish_Line

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'm starting to think you're just doing this to pass time in the unemployment line

likitisplit

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'm starting to think you're just doing this to pass time in the unemployment line

My guess is that he travels extensively for work. So he doesn't have a real social network and spends his time reading, screwing around on the internet and working out in the hotel gym.

likitisplit

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.

You make it sound like being a part of a collective is a bad thing. All of the greats had a social context. No idea was created in the vacuum of a single mind. A genius might be able to put things together beyond the abilities of ordinary people, but they need others to rub against, gain insights from and refine what they are thinking.

MrTolerable

Your first red flag is that it's not "mainstream." Which means that it has been glanced at by serious scientists who are interested in getting published in peer reviewed journals and discarded for more accepted research and theories.

Basically, it's saying that a select few go through a sort of internal breakdown to reach levels that aren't accessible by the rest of us...and that's just not the experience that these highly "over-excitable" scientists have with the world. If that theory would get a solid "YES" from anybody, it would be those nerds. It's not what they are seeing in the world, either in average people or the "gifted" (however we're happening to define that today).

While I've stayed the hell away from developmental and clinical psychology, I've had profound personal experiences that brought home Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development. It just works with what we see in the real world. Piaget gets supported with real world experiences. A few of Freud's ideas are still in circulation because they work. They predict what we find, they reflect what we see.

What Dabrowski sounds like are the awesome, wonderful, profound statements made on http://www.theicarusproject.net/

There are certain mental disorders that are associated with gifted, creative movers and shakers. And that different perspective is kind of awesome. And most people go through life experiences that change them and their outlook in profound ways, like parenthood for instance...a lot of people describe similar experiences in their blogs when they realize that their actions will never affect another person's point of view. But it doesn't seem to be either a sufficient or a necessary experience to be a gifted, creative mover/shaker.

The thing is, if I had a really great, innovative idea about social psychology where I looked at a body of research and created a testable idea that would add something to the field. And I described this on MFP - about 75% of the people here would say, "I don't know how you could prove that. I mean, everybody is so different." Sigh.

So, if I had such an idea, I'd go apply to Ohio State where I could get access to a community of peers that would understand the context of my rationale and would be able to suggest new avenues of research and pick holes in my ideas and provide everything that a community of peers would give.

I don't know of any professional psychology professor who would be all that interested in picking apart a random theory online without getting paid to do it as part of their duties.

Your first red flag is that it's not "mainstream." - I know - seriously this is my biggest concern. :embarassed: I'm hoping to provide more credibility to it, but it doesn't help that the disciples of his I feel perverted and added a ton of junk to his theory. Erikson's Theory of personality/psychosocial development is exactly what the psychologist I'm dating keeps hammering over and over again.

...and I DEF am not saying that Erikson's wrong! :drinker: - and it is mainstream, I only took a few psychology courses in college and it's where we spent most of the semester.

I'm going to have to check out http://www.theicarusproject.net/ - glancing through their forums it looks like a place I could develop my ideas..

appreciate your closing thoughts - you are right- I agree.

MrTolerable

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.

so... you're telling us that you are very depressed?

No?

likitisplit

It's really easy, when you're kinda bright, to think yourself down rabbit holes. Find your community. It's not here.

MrTolerable

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'm starting to think you're just doing this to pass time in the unemployment line

My guess is that he travels extensively for work. So he doesn't have a real social network and spends his time reading, screwing around on the internet and working out in the hotel gym.

Ahh..the life of a salesman.

Gym, Reading, Running, Thinking, Big Smiles, Selling, Appreciating Art, Observing Beauty, Trying to find 'me' - a joyful daily cycle.



Thank goodness for the Kindle! Revolutionized my reading efficiency.

MrTolerable

It's really easy, when you're kinda bright, to think yourself down rabbit holes. Find your community. It's not here.

Yep!

I'm not slamming the door on MFP - closing it quietly - but I agree.

No_Finish_Line

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'm starting to think you're just doing this to pass time in the unemployment line

My guess is that he travels extensively for work. So he doesn't have a real social network and spends his time reading, screwing around on the internet and working out in the hotel gym.

my guess is he's enjoying college, or just graduated and has nothing to do

mank32

A genius might be able to put things together beyond the abilities of ordinary people, but they need others to rub against, gain insights from and refine what they are thinking.

ironically, it doesn't take a genius to realize the value of 'the herd'.

OP, you might look to Dr. Manjir Samanta-Laughton's 'Punk Science' for more pop-culture, hand-waving, spiritual discussion of quantum mechanics and consciousness. That is, if you can stomach reading something that's engaging, entertaining, and layman-friendly in style. It's a little on the hand-wavey side for me, but I still enjoyed it. That's all I got on my head screaming to be wrote at the moment.

MrTolerable

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.

You make it sound like being a part of a collective is a bad thing. All of the greats had a social context. No idea was created in the vacuum of a single mind. A genius might be able to put things together beyond the abilities of ordinary people, but they need others to rub against, gain insights from and refine what they are thinking.

I agree you need ordinary people to rub against - I find this need in myself - but it is me seeking out individuals - not collective groups. I think it leads to a state of 'anchoring' that is not healthy for personalty development - Peter Wessel Zapffe makes a decent case for this in 'The last Messiah' and so does Ligotti in 'The conspiracy against the human race'.

^big examples of this is church, free masons, the company someone works for, political group - people use these as the makeup of their identity - and then if one falls through - bam. It is like they lost a piece of them self.

MrTolerable

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'm starting to think you're just doing this to pass time in the unemployment line

My guess is that he travels extensively for work. So he doesn't have a real social network and spends his time reading, screwing around on the internet and working out in the hotel gym.

my guess is he's enjoying college, or just graduated and has nothing to do

College has past, I have a degree in marketing and one in economics. - Time is scarce and my time is finite, so I am painstakingly exploring what I want to do to make the best utility of myself and it.

likitisplit

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.

You make it sound like being a part of a collective is a bad thing. All of the greats had a social context. No idea was created in the vacuum of a single mind. A genius might be able to put things together beyond the abilities of ordinary people, but they need others to rub against, gain insights from and refine what they are thinking.

I agree you need ordinary people to rub against - I find this need in myself - but it is me seeking out individuals - not collective groups. I think it leads to a state of 'anchoring' that is not healthy for personalty development - Peter Wessel Zapffe makes a decent case for this in 'The last Messiah' and so does Ligotti in 'The conspiracy against the human race'.

^big examples of this is church, free masons, the company someone works for, political group - people use these as the makeup of their identity - and then if one falls through - bam. It is like they lost a piece of them self.

Depends on your church. I found a lot of value in the "Adult Formation" hour of bible reading and discussion in my church. It was great because people were adding historical context, knowledge of Jewish law, different interpretations and perspectives, etc. etc. to the same few lines of text.

No_Finish_Line

idk, to me, psychology was a lot like english class to me, so long as you could make a logical argument based on the text, then you are *right*. actually right and wrong don't really mean much, just being able to support your ideas

I guess in psychology, life is the 'text'. And it all really seemed to amount to a lot of conjecture, with very little substance, 'truth' or practicle application outside of cognitive therapy.

I don't really see anything special about having or not having any of those 'excitablities'.

I do see something special about exploring such things with in oneself, recognizing them for the positives and negatives inherent within them, and acting accordingly.

I see it as being important to grow as a human being, but i don't see it as really being correlated with being 'gifted' which in itself is undefined. and what little i read gave no evidence that the two were related at all.

I think there is definetly those who basically never carefully reflect on life and are content to just watch tv, those that who will explore thier view of the world now and then, and those that can do nothing other then constantly analyze and reanalyze every aspect of life. i would tend to think that the 'gifted' or more intelligent would be more inclinced to reflect but that is not garunteed to be so. And i certainly couldn't tell you which approach to life is better or more meaningful

No_Finish_Line

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'm starting to think you're just doing this to pass time in the unemployment line

My guess is that he travels extensively for work. So he doesn't have a real social network and spends his time reading, screwing around on the internet and working out in the hotel gym.

my guess is he's enjoying college, or just graduated and has nothing to do

College has past, I have a degree in marketing and one in economics. - Time is scarce and my time is finite, so I am painstakingly exploring what I want to do to make the best utility of myself and it.

pro tip- get off the internet