Again, @@@@@@@@@below Natalia All mail scanned by NAV
| Natalia K wrote: | > My remark to you pertained to your inability to explain why you professed | > that Freud's theories on the subconscious were not a significant | > contribution to psychology. | | I didn't doubt that they are a significant contribution to the wrong | school(s) of psychology, but that they are on target for the important | issues .@@@@@@Vague, but important issues as you see it so you can be the 'winner'? @@@@@@ The original topic was projection, around which Freud made significant contributions with respect to subconscious mind and bringing to light the imagery and inner experiences that frequent it. The elicitation of these images was central to treating patients, and the work he did was to that end. Cocaine was used to better extract these images--not for the purpose of peddling. Freud had enough access to money. He didn't need to peddle drugs. His objective was research. Like many contemporaries, he was unaware of harmful side-effects. @@@@@@ The first posting to others on the list on the topic of projection makes perception had absolutely nothing to do with your input regarding Freud's cocaine use. But of course, ever the need in you to rant: Chris's first contribution: It's not surprising that the drug fans are uncritically praising Siegmund Fraud, who was one of the big early promoters of cocaine in Europe, thinking he can become famous by peddling the stuff as sort of cure-all while dishonestly denying its negative aspects (esp. addictiveness), even after many had become addicted, including a friend that he had claimed to "cure" with cocaine. Much later he didn't want to know anything about the topic and even blamed the mess on his bride he had filled up with cocaine. Can you say "projection"... @@@@@ Many people on this list support decriminalization. They told you that before, and yet you continue to communicate with them. How can it be that you find they have any brains left worthy of your attention given that you leap to the presumption that support for decriminalization=drug user/supporter, therefore twisted? You cannot change the fact that Freud did make significant contributions to the field of psychology. I was not glorifying his use of cocaine, as you are trying to portray. His being an addict does not take away from his contributions. But your overwhelming need to preach about addiction underscores how badly you need to preach to yourself. If you had stuck to the topic of projection alone, of course, you wouldn't have had an excuse to insult me and cause for attempts to incriminate me, which is a compulsive need in you, which is so "all-or-none of you", and also characteristic of your first line of defence. @@@@@@ Your previous posting, 09/16/05--- Natalia said----You select the worst known traits of an individual, and judge the whole > person accordingly. Chris said ----No, I judge by the relevant traits, and Freud's attitude towards cocaine and his later dishonesty re. the issue is very crucial to his overall (non-)credibility. Freud was very predator-class and preached the (mis)use of drugs to facilitate the oppression and rip-off of people, especially of patients. Dependency-creating, brain-destroying drugs along with mind-numbing psycho-babble that consistently deflects attention from the real issues and increases the profits of predators. > That he was deceived by cocaine was ironic, It wasn't ironic, it was _typical_ (both of Freud and of cocaine). > but hardly negated his accomplishments. Chris said---It puts his accomplishments into perspective: The weird ideas of a druggy who is dishonest about himself and towards his friends and patients, even if it costs their life. @@@@@@ No it does not put his accomplishments into perspective. Only his errors--in a way that makes sense to you. | | > &&& I concede. I mis-spelled a word. At least I know the meaning of it. | | It was a projection anyway. @@@@@@ You've learned a new word but you still don't know the meaning of it. A mis-spelling of a word can signify a Freudian slip but since the mis-spelling only resulted in a "tent", and in a previous posting you showed you didn't know what a Freudian slip is, as evident by this previous comment: Chris said: What really enhances the mental abilities of people is good nutrition and drug abstinence from the start (or even before conception..). No amount of Freudian slips, psycho-babble and drug-industry PR can change that. @@@@@ ---then I shall conclude that you are still trying to bluff your way out. | > &&& You have often declared that psychology is psycho-babble. The last | > time was when you used it to debunk the "all-or-none" syndrome. | | Nonsense -- you misattributed the "all-or-none" syndrome. @@@@@@ I strongly disagree. | I'd suggest you learn to spell dilettante before emitting further dilettantish (or Freudian) psycho-babble -- and no, I have NOT "often declared that psychology is psycho babble", but your school of psychology is. From someone who even advised friends into death from drugs, and who continued heavy smoking even after having his jaw removed due to cancer, you really can't expect any sane position on drugs, illegal or not. | | > > From someone who even advised friends into death from drugs, and who | > > continued heavy smoking even after having his jaw removed due to cancer, | > > you really can't expect any sane position on drugs, illegal or not. @@@@@@@ The context was rather dis-joint-ive, since first you were enlisting pejorative, presumptuous and inaccurate remarks about what I espouse as a school of psychology. And the topic for this paragraph was about Freud's actual accomplishments as opposed to his downfall, so we weren't discussing Freud's own position on drugs, illegal or not. | > | > &&& Perhaps if you rewrote the above it would not be up to interpretation. | > Are you saying that it is unlikely to expect a sane position from you on | > drugs because you partook in them to your detriment, and advised to the | > detriment of others their use of them? Or are you talking about another | > friend? &&&&& | | Ha, ha. Obviously I was talking about Freud, but your drug-inspired | attention span seems to be too short to have noticed this from the context. | @@@@@ Chris, see above. No, it wasn't obvious, and thanks for finally making your connection clear. It sounded to me like a flashback to your days of army life, when you once described a guy's serious freak-out when looking for a pot or something at the base. I always wondered if it was autobiographical. What is the drug-inspired attention span bit? Just because I support decriminalization, and listen to Mozart (a famous alcoholic) my attention span can't leap to your erratic train of thought? | | > Consistently, you have no solution whatsoever to offer, only aggravation | > (also literally). A waste of time. | > | > &&&&&&You are the one who is supposed to have answers you haven't yet | > shared.Nor do you ever respond to my very relevant questions. | | You should come up with a better concept if you think that mine is bad. | I did respond to your questions but you are unable or unwilling to listen. @@@@@@ And that was when??Not in this conversation. | | And your claim to be "addressing the root cause of violence/depression/ | oppression" is preposterous because you have no idea of the basic issues, | with assertions like (earlier): @@@@@ I said it needs to be addressed. But let's see my statement in its entirety: &&&&&& Debating is a waste of time, but exchange never is. I am not the one who claimed to have sweeping solutions for the world addiction issues, apart from addressing the root cause of violence/depression/oppression. I made the suggestion that keeping pot smokers out of jails would leave room for hard criminals such as murderers, rapists and abusers. These regularly released repeat offenders cost the system and society far more than any pot smoking kid. But media and politics have rather forgotten about these chiefly because of US government war on drugs, which may also support the projection theory: they try to round up pot smokers and growers because they are financing their secretive little war departments by its illegal sales themselves. If I'm wrong on that one, I'll be very surprised given that it is on record that the CIA escorted drug-laden boats into New York City harbour. Given that somehow these top secret departments are miraculously being financed to the tune ! of trillions of dollars, and given that the US Army can misplace 3.3 trillion dollars without an investigation, you can be sure that their funds are illegal as hell. &&&&&& | >>> People were violent/depressed/oppressed through the bygone ages of | >>> healthier soil and water, healthier diets | | Actually, in the "bygone ages", malnutrition was immense. In contrast, | our modern era would provide a unique opportunity for optimum nutrition, | but instead the junkfood junta is serving worse food than ever. @@@@@ Malnutrition was chiefly in cities where the poor were abundant. Thus it will remain until we return to all organic foods and we address the poverty that also accounts for poor diets. The farms of yesteryear produced good quality fare. There were no pesticides. Long ago there was little use of sugar, no mono's, no GMOs, no by-products, no artificial flavors or colorants, no pasteurization of dairy products, no unnatural preservatives, no liberal use of petroleum products in prepared foods, no prepared foods period, far safer water and soil that had 90% better microbiological quality. There were few allopathic drugs to contend with. Few pollutants, certainly nothing chemical. And yet social problems prevailed, retention was unbelievable, abuse extremely high. So we know a little more about cleanliness and germs, and have science to perpetuate bodies, and we know more about nutrition. Not all of us, sure. But basic aggression/depression/oppression, which I maintain to be! the root cause of addiction, start with how you are raised, the examples of good relationships you have experienced, the examples of fairness and justice you are shown, etc. So, again, with all that good nutrition and exercise going for you, why are you so aggressive/angry, so highly critical of others and, by your own admission, though it wasn't necessary to admit to, harsh with yourself ? Is it important to purify yourself to automaton status? Did the army training tactics of endeavouring to bring out the best you can be result only in bodily awareness? | | Your fundamental misunderstanding of this issue is emblematic of the | counterproductiveness of your concept. And your umpteenth strawman | about the CIA's "war on drugs" doesn't improve your point at all. @@@@@ I was not discussing a concept, only "projection" at the outset. Then it became a debate, from your perspective, on the validity of my views on decriminalization of soft drugs. So now which concept are you referring to? Better nutrition/total prohibition?Or still the decriminalization concept? Your emotions around all of these topics makes it difficult to afford the time. You have a great need to express something, but I don't think it's any of the topics you want to discuss here. Anger is the key thread upon which you vault all over the place, but always back to your personal war on drugs. Put your passion to work Chris, I'm sure someone will be appreciative if you can learn first to identify with them, and then learn not to be so judgmental. Contrary to your wishful thinking, I have worked both voluntarily and professionally towards strengthening hundreds of people's self-image and sense of self so that they don't continue with addictive, self-destructive behaviour, and this would include letting go of drugs. Apart from internet postings, what are you doing in the real world to this end to make a difference? Why don't you write out your ideas on prohibition, and present them to the people who are of the same mind as you, exchange ideas with them, then present them all to a publisher. You could become the new purist/nutritional fascist figurehead! @@@@@Natalia@@@@@ | | Chris | | | | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword | "igve". | | | _______________________________________________ | Futurework mailing list | [email protected] | http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
