Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - TLEILAXU

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48
1
Haha, it's hard to say what exactly it is they want, but the whole album is about the instauration of a new world order that seems to end up destroying humanity. No salvation here! Just like in TSA...
Quote
You cannot even find the ruins
of the jewels of yesterday
they’re ashes gone
memories wiped clean

2
Deathspell Omega - Renegade Ashes

Quote
Our holy duty is not to govern the City, nor the fight to gain power: it is the attainment of perfection on earth, the instauration of an Order so perfect as to last a thousand years and then forevermore.
Therefore, anyone turning their backs on this blessed mission renounce their right to life.

3
Philosophy & Science / Re: The mindfulness conspiracy
« on: June 15, 2019, 08:14:32 am »
I think the key assumption here is that a person trying to be mindful, or practicing mindfulness, is incapable of both critical thinking and active engagement. Which... is ridiculous.
If it's ridiculous then how do you explain them practicing mindfulness in the first place? A person capable of critical thinking would not do that.

4
I dont even know if its possible, but since PC I'm sure there's mods if nothing else, but would turning down the difficulty ruin the experience of playing the games? I got about 2 or 3 bosses into DS3 and basically decided I didn't have the time to invest in it all. Seems cool though!
Yes it would. Overcoming obstacles through practice and learning the mechanics is a significant part of the game. If you genuinely can't beat them in Dark Souls 3 you can always summon a spirit to help you, at the risk of being invaded by dark spirits in return.

Also, stoked for this game.

5
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Worth of an Angry God
« on: June 08, 2019, 01:42:11 am »
What about Buddhism tho. I mean it's moralizing but there's no angry god.

6
Deathspell Omega - The Furnaces of Palingenesia
Quote
This world contains neither meaning nor justice!
That is, the world of yore is unintelligible, unless God conceived History as the History of the crimes and misfortunes of the human race. Therefore, the here and now shall be torn down and we will bless this world with meaning and justice.

Arranged as they have been in all eternity, Man and the natural order cannot have been made for each other. We shall dissolve Man and mould him into a new shape, as you would mould a malformed limb, into a shape that fits the aforementioned order.

We will act as though the principle of our actions were to become, by our will alone, a universal law of nature. We shall bear a world so perfect that its realization will undo us, we shall name it NEDE. This is the promise of our Providence.

Hearken now : «Everything is degenerate as it leaves the hands of the Author of nature; everything becomes good in the hands of Man».

7
I don't trust the words of buddhist westerners, but I do think buddhism is kinda fascinating with e.g. their mummies and shit.

8
Popping off to a couple of things at the moment.
Deathspell Omega - Ad Arma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-sNygFHM9M
Lagwagon  - Angry Days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW0Ae742ZKk
Ennio Morricone/Joan Baez - Here's to You
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oday_Fc-Gc

9
Quote
You say though, that it has nothing to do with "control" but really, she did take over responsibility for her own health, took to influencing her own outcome rather than passively handing it off to a doctor, or anyone else.  So, indeed, if you don't like the word "control" don't use it, but she certainly did exercise influence on her outcome.  That's the point.  If you don't like the notion of "locus of control" call it whatever you like, the outcome is still the same.  Rather than be passive and think of things as just happening to her, she took action and changed behaviors and got better results for it.  Maybe people do not do that.
She changed behavior in the sense that she changed her diet but that's not the same as the "dude just be more positive" that you often hear. I mean, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant with control and agency, I took it to mean control of your own mentality, so to speak, which is where Mikhaila's case is so interesting because it wasn't about any of that, it was about diet.

Quote
"I'd rather die than not eat sugar"
I mean, shouldn't that tell us something about how deeply people are stuck in these things? I'm reminded of the Bakker example with the moth flying into a bug zapper. It can't resist the light.

Quote
there is almost certainly, in my mind, something they could do, psychologically, to ameliorate it.
I mean, I don't disagree, but I see this more as behavioral re-wiring rather than assuming some locus of control or whatever.

10
I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with the first part of what you said; if I had e.g. depression I wouldn't want to take any drugs myself, because I'd be too afraid of the side-effects. Still, by denying or downplaying the biology involved we're doing ourselves a huge disservice. Just take Mikhaila Peterson. Auto-immune problems, depression etc. all seemingly connected to some real weird gut microbiome phenomenon. It was never about changing the world-view in her case, it was just about changing her diet.

But in her case, imagine that she had no intent on changing her way of thinking and behavior.  If she just insisted that she should do nothing different, but be given the pill to make her condition go away.  In fact, that sort of what is what happened with her as a kid, with the initial diagnoses and the poor results it gave her.  All the anti-inflammatory drugs in the world could not help.  Only once she started to think about the "problem" in a different way and changed her conceptualizing of the nature of the problem and her behavior, was she able to change the outcome.  See, she actually took control over her own health, rather than being a victim and demanding a pill to stop it.  So, I don't think your example proves your point, in fact, really just the opposite.
I mean, I see what you're getting at but no, haha, I don't agree. She didn't 'will' her condition away, it wasn't about world-view or having a positive outlook on life, it was about physical illness caused by some weird digestive shit. I agree that the drugs didn't help, and in that case you do what you have to do (been there myself, googling, experimenting with my own solutions when the doctors and the pills kept not improving anything), but I don't think this has anything to do with 'control'. Just because something is not in your control doesn't mean you have to lie down and be a fatalist victim, I mean, why should you? On the contrary it can be a liberating experience since you don't have to feel guilty about not 'controlling' your life the proper way.

Quote
If the way you think causes problems, all the drugs in the world won't work.  If the fundamental problem is just a biological mis-working, then sure, it can work to just take a pill.  My hunch though, is that there are far more people in the former camp, than in the biologically malfunctioning camp.
But are you sure of that? And what of everybody in between, who need that joint therapy?

Quote
If fact, I think many people with poor health, are in this camp.  They don't want to stop eating bad food, they don't want to stop over-eating, they just want a pill to make these things have no consequences.  It seems plausible that it could work the same sort of way psychologically for a variety of issues, in many cases.
I just don't agree here. I don't think anybody actually wants to be a fat fuck. They might rationalize it (because they're in control of their lives after all, aren't they?), but I don't think anybody genuinely wants to be stuck in these unhealthy behavioral loops.

11
Quote
My assumption, which could like be wrong, because who the fuck am I, but it would be that more "general anxiety" and "general depression" could be dealt with through a non-pharmaceutical approach
Does it have to be? I mean what about a case by case basis?

Well, I think you are mischaracterizing my point though.  I am saying, that yes, any effectiveness will indeed be a case by case basis, but, my hunch is that there are more cases where a non-drug approach could and would work than are currently both proscribed and generally accepted by patients.  I think part of that could be because the non-drug approach is also a lot of work and will require changes in assumptions, world-view and manners of thought, which many people just don't want to do.  POeople really do seem to have a "just give me a pill" approach.  In the same way that where I live, most people have high blood pressure, but won't alter the slightest bit of their diet.  "Just give me a pill, I am not going to change what I am eating."

Forgive my bias, but I can't help but imagine that psychology can work the same way.
I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with the first part of what you said; if I had e.g. depression I wouldn't want to take any drugs myself, because I'd be too afraid of the side-effects. Still, by denying or downplaying the biology involved we're doing ourselves a huge disservice. Just take Mikhaila Peterson. Auto-immune problems, depression etc. all seemingly connected to some real weird gut microbiome phenomenon. It was never about changing the world-view in her case, it was just about changing her diet.

12
Quote
drugging yourself likely will not have the long-term effect one would likely want.
I completely agree.
Quote
My assumption, which could like be wrong, because who the fuck am I, but it would be that more "general anxiety" and "general depression" could be dealt with through a non-pharmaceutical approach
Does it have to be? I mean what about a case by case basis?

Quote
It is, to me, a mistake the even court the idea of a total "biological locus of control" for most cases of general anxiety or depression.  Again, this does not preclude that some cases might well feature such a thing.  But to default to the idea of that, is, in my opinion, a mistake, because it will tend to inform a lack of agency on the part of the sufferer.  Even if they are indeed largely a victim of circumstances outside their control, conceding even the small amount of control they do have, in my opinion, is a massive mistake.
Why? Maybe the incessant need to be in control actually fuels these things, and being told it's not your fault can be a relief.

13
Lol @ this demonization of the big pharma. Of course nothing is perfect, and sure you've got doctors around who just put you on various shitty ass anti-depressants whose side effects are perhaps not even worth it, but at least somebody is fucking trying.
Tell you what, if you ever end up with a kid with e.g. schizophrenia a you'll be happy that there's somebody making drugs to treat it.

Well, the gulf between an "anxiety" or "depression" diagnosis and schizophrenia is really vast, in my opinion.

Like I said though, it isn't as if I am unbiased on this.  However, that doesn't mean I am 100% incorrect to think that some things could be better treated without drugs.  I actually think that the "fact" that drugs work for something like schizophrenia is part of why it is assumed that it would work for something like "general anxiety."  But just because both fall into the  realm of "psychology" does not mean they are best handled via the same (sort of) proscription.

While it's funny to imagine that I am taking some Luddite line here, it's really not the case.
In what sense? You can talk about loci of control but that doesn't make them anymore concrete. Who are you to say that somebody's suicidal thoughts aren't just as much an 'external' locus of control as somebody else's epilepsy? Isn't the notion that these diagnoses are not really biological, not "real" diagnoses, in a sense responsible for pertuating the stigmatization? Like I'm not saying CBT should be thrown out, obviously taking anti-depressives alone might not cure your depression, but while you're talking about "procedural issues", these drugs are helping patients, except when they don't of course, because nothing is perfect and everybody is unique and not everybody responds to drugs the same way, but at least somebody is trying to make products to improve the livelihood of patients, can you believe that?
I just think it's funny/sad that it's become such a popular opinion to hate "big pharma" these days. People sharing stories on facebook about how it's all a big scam and how "natural" plant pills (which you can buy from our 100% natural ayurvedic medicine store) and "mindfulness" cured their depression and what have you.

14
Lol @ this demonization of the big pharma. Of course nothing is perfect, and sure you've got doctors around who just put you on various shitty ass anti-depressants whose side effects are perhaps not even worth it, but at least somebody is fucking trying.
Tell you what, if you ever end up with a kid with e.g. schizophrenia a you'll be happy that there's somebody making drugs to treat it.

15
Cool! I'm running out of space for my child-por- I mean landscape images so this can't happen soon enough.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48