Is God a practical joker?

[coberst]

Is God a practical joker?

But love has pitched his mansion in

The place of excrement.—Yeats

The rose in the midst of the thorn and sex in the midst of the anus.--coberst

One might think of God as a great practical joker. S/he creates a species that considers it self to inhabit an area between god and animal. Humans then seek to repress the animal side of its nature and to inflate the imagined god like part of its nature; its aspect that is in various situations considered as soul, or consciousness, or mind, or…

Jonathan Swift is perhaps the most famous of authors to parody the human eccentric behavior in attempting to repress recognition of our animal body. If there is a God s/he must be a very witty practical joker. Can you imagine the delight s/he must enjoy while observing humans contending with the problems relating to the pitching of the love mansion among the eliminating portals of the human body?

Psychoanalysis is about the nature of repression; the essential characteristic of the human psyche.

There is a constant conflict between the conscious and the unconscious. Societies repress the individual and the individual represses the self.

Neurotic behavior, dreams, and various “Freudian slips” provide us with e-mails from the unconscious that elude the conscious repression mechanism. These behavior characteristics are meaningful because they manifest the purpose of the unconscious that remains hidden from consciousness.

The conscious mind strenuously disowns and resists the rumblings of the unconscious. The conscious self disowns and resists its human nature.

Neurosis is the label given to these human phenomena of conflict between the conscious and unconscious self. All of us are neurotic to one degree or another. When this neurosis interferes with “normal” human behavior then, and only then, does it require outside interference by society.

Universal neurosis is the analogy of “original sin” for theological doctrine.

“The most scandalous pieces of Swiftian scatology are three of his later poems—“The Lady’s Dressing Room”, “Strephon and Chloe”, “Cassinus and Peter”—which are variations on the theme:

Oh! Caelia, Caelia, Caelia, %&@*$

Aldous Huxley explicates, saying, “The monosyllabic verb, which the modesties of 1929 will not allow me to print, rhymes with ‘wits’ and ‘fits’.”

Swift’s metaphor for humans as Yahoo’s, which are excrementally filthy, is even more in tune with his overall parodying human eccentricities when it comes to recognizing the nature of the body.

It appears to me that logical positivism, more appropriately called logical empiricism, is philosophy’s attempt to separate completely the human mind from the human body. Logical empiricism travels on the back of a system of symbolic logic whereby a scientifically codified set of symbols is developed which permits ordinary human language to be converted into a system of symbols for the purpose of analyzing conscious thought for its truth value. Anything that does not fit into this ‘symbol system epistemology’ is rejected as meaningless.

As best that I can understand it logical positivism is a philosophy that attempts to define meaning as being confined to empirical observations modified somewhat by rational processes, which does deposit some characteristics to the observed data.

I am a retired electronics engineer and while working I took courses in Symbolic Logic from the philosophy dept of a local university. This was 35 years ago and my thoughts might be a bit foggy but this is as I remember it to be.

Symbolic logic was proposed as a means to readily analyze complex arguments for their validity. There were standard symbols available for application to phrases and sentences. Since this mode of truth telling (logical positivism) comprehended all meaning as being consciously constructed necessary and sufficient definitions, meaning was fairly easily discovered.

Then by manipulating these symbols in prescribed algorithms one could ascertain the validity of the very complex arguments. This made computer generated analysis a piece of cake.

coberstakaDutchuncle

[OpenMind]

coberst;1183163 wrote: Is God a practical joker?



But love has pitched his mansion in

The place of excrement.—Yeats



The rose in the midst of the thorn and sex in the midst of the anus.--coberst



One might think of God as a great practical joker. S/he creates a species that considers it self to inhabit an area between god and animal. Humans then seek to repress the animal side of its nature and to inflate the imagined god like part of its nature; its aspect that is in various situations considered as soul, or consciousness, or mind, or…



Jonathan Swift is perhaps the most famous of authors to parody the human eccentric behavior in attempting to repress recognition of our animal body. If there is a God s/he must be a very witty practical joker. Can you imagine the delight s/he must enjoy while observing humans contending with the problems relating to the pitching of the love mansion among the eliminating portals of the human body?



Psychoanalysis is about the nature of repression; the essential characteristic of the human psyche.



There is a constant conflict between the conscious and the unconscious. Societies repress the individual and the individual represses the self.



Neurotic behavior, dreams, and various “Freudian slips” provide us with e-mails from the unconscious that elude the conscious repression mechanism. These behavior characteristics are meaningful because they manifest the purpose of the unconscious that remains hidden from consciousness.



The conscious mind strenuously disowns and resists the rumblings of the unconscious. The conscious self disowns and resists its human nature.



Neurosis is the label given to these human phenomena of conflict between the conscious and unconscious self. All of us are neurotic to one degree or another. When this neurosis interferes with “normal” human behavior then, and only then, does it require outside interference by society.



Universal neurosis is the analogy of “original sin” for theological doctrine.



“The most scandalous pieces of Swiftian scatology are three of his later poems—“The Lady’s Dressing Room”, “Strephon and Chloe”, “Cassinus and Peter”—which are variations on the theme:

Oh! Caelia, Caelia, Caelia, %&@*$

Aldous Huxley explicates, saying, “The monosyllabic verb, which the modesties of 1929 will not allow me to print, rhymes with ‘wits’ and ‘fits’.”



Swift’s metaphor for humans as Yahoo’s, which are excrementally filthy, is even more in tune with his overall parodying human eccentricities when it comes to recognizing the nature of the body.



It appears to me that logical positivism, more appropriately called logical empiricism, is philosophy’s attempt to separate completely the human mind from the human body. Logical empiricism travels on the back of a system of symbolic logic whereby a scientifically codified set of symbols is developed which permits ordinary human language to be converted into a system of symbols for the purpose of analyzing conscious thought for its truth value. Anything that does not fit into this ‘symbol system epistemology’ is rejected as meaningless.



As best that I can understand it logical positivism is a philosophy that attempts to define meaning as being confined to empirical observations modified somewhat by rational processes, which does deposit some characteristics to the observed data.



I am a retired electronics engineer and while working I took courses in Symbolic Logic from the philosophy dept of a local university. This was 35 years ago and my thoughts might be a bit foggy but this is as I remember it to be.



Symbolic logic was proposed as a means to readily analyze complex arguments for their validity. There were standard symbols available for application to phrases and sentences. Since this mode of truth telling (logical positivism) comprehended all meaning as being consciously constructed necessary and sufficient definitions, meaning was fairly easily discovered.



Then by manipulating these symbols in prescribed algorithms one could ascertain the validity of the very complex arguments. This made computer generated analysis a piece of cake.



coberstakaDutchuncle


I always felt that religion was created to counter the undignified way in which we were born. Let's face it,before hospitals, human birth was very undignified. It's not much better even with hospitals. Given that we are the most intelligent species on this planet, we had to come up with something to hide this obvious relationship with common animals. But, in fact, the only problems with birth before religion came along was the woman's need for protection from attack by carnivores and scavengers.



As for neurosis, is it not surprising that I see neurosis in any creature being chased for food. My god, that young buck being chased down by a leopard is fully neurotic. I mean, hooves are just no match to fully primed claws. As it was for early man, I am sure, before he came up with his self-fashioned weapons.

Worse for man, he gets chased down by his own kin. The average child is not born neurotic. It is born within an atmosphere of love. Neurosis develops as a part of interacting with one's peers and escaping the bogeyman.

There is nothing subconscious about fear. The child knows no fear until it either is shown that it should fear something or has a fearful experience.

Fear is both uncertainty and belief in a certainty.



In the 15th and 16th centuries AD, the term excrement had a broader meaning which included anything that came out of the body, skin hair included. This is exemplified by Shakespeare's usage of the term.

[fuzzywuzzy]

I fail to see how any of that ranting has anything to do with GOD.

Coberst you've found a dictionary ....good... now throw it away and speak english. Because you clearly do not have any idea as to how to use grammar.

Big words, little imagination and autistic ramblings mean nothing. For heavens sake, use your own words will you. I feel you have written in a sentence then gone to a dictionary and found the most (what you percieve) as the most intellectual word available. It doesn't work.

The rose in the midst of the thorn and sex in the midst of the anus.--coberst




You're not well are you.:-2

It appears to me that logical positivism, more appropriately called logical empiricism, is philosophy’s attempt to separate completely the human mind from the human body. Logical empiricism travels on the back of a system of symbolic logic whereby a scientifically codified set of symbols is developed which permits ordinary human language to be converted into a system of symbols for the purpose of analyzing conscious thought for its truth value. Anything that does not fit into this ‘symbol system epistemology’ is rejected as meaningless.


YOu don't even know what that means. At the very least you're an 'aspergers' sufferer.

[Moriarty]

"You're not well are you".

Alas, its either that, or the aging process.

[farmer giles]

coberst;1183163 wrote: Is God a practical joker?

But love has pitched his mansion in

The place of excrement.—Yeats

The rose in the midst of the thorn and sex in the midst of the anus.--coberst

One might think of God as a great practical joker. S/he creates a species that considers it self to inhabit an area between god and animal. Humans then seek to repress the animal side of its nature and to inflate the imagined god like part of its nature; its aspect that is in various situations considered as soul, or consciousness, or mind, or…

Jonathan Swift is perhaps the most famous of authors to parody the human eccentric behavior in attempting to repress recognition of our animal body. If there is a God s/he must be a very witty practical joker. Can you imagine the delight s/he must enjoy while observing humans contending with the problems relating to the pitching of the love mansion among the eliminating portals of the human body?

Psychoanalysis is about the nature of repression; the essential characteristic of the human psyche.

There is a constant conflict between the conscious and the unconscious. Societies repress the individual and the individual represses the self.

Neurotic behavior, dreams, and various “Freudian slips” provide us with e-mails from the unconscious that elude the conscious repression mechanism. These behavior characteristics are meaningful because they manifest the purpose of the unconscious that remains hidden from consciousness.

The conscious mind strenuously disowns and resists the rumblings of the unconscious. The conscious self disowns and resists its human nature.

Neurosis is the label given to these human phenomena of conflict between the conscious and unconscious self. All of us are neurotic to one degree or another. When this neurosis interferes with “normal” human behavior then, and only then, does it require outside interference by society.

Universal neurosis is the analogy of “original sin” for theological doctrine.

“The most scandalous pieces of Swiftian scatology are three of his later poems—“The Lady’s Dressing Room”, “Strephon and Chloe”, “Cassinus and Peter”—which are variations on the theme:

Oh! Caelia, Caelia, Caelia, %&@*$

Aldous Huxley explicates, saying, “The monosyllabic verb, which the modesties of 1929 will not allow me to print, rhymes with ‘wits’ and ‘fits’.”

Swift’s metaphor for humans as Yahoo’s, which are excrementally filthy, is even more in tune with his overall parodying human eccentricities when it comes to recognizing the nature of the body.

It appears to me that logical positivism, more appropriately called logical empiricism, is philosophy’s attempt to separate completely the human mind from the human body. Logical empiricism travels on the back of a system of symbolic logic whereby a scientifically codified set of symbols is developed which permits ordinary human language to be converted into a system of symbols for the purpose of analyzing conscious thought for its truth value. Anything that does not fit into this ‘symbol system epistemology’ is rejected as meaningless.

As best that I can understand it logical positivism is a philosophy that attempts to define meaning as being confined to empirical observations modified somewhat by rational processes, which does deposit some characteristics to the observed data.

I am a retired electronics engineer and while working I took courses in Symbolic Logic from the philosophy dept of a local university. This was 35 years ago and my thoughts might be a bit foggy but this is as I remember it to be.

Symbolic logic was proposed as a means to readily analyze complex arguments for their validity. There were standard symbols available for application to phrases and sentences. Since this mode of truth telling (logical positivism) comprehended all meaning as being consciously constructed necessary and sufficient definitions, meaning was fairly easily discovered.

Then by manipulating these symbols in prescribed algorithms one could ascertain the validity of the very complex arguments. This made computer generated analysis a piece of cake.

coberstakaDutchuncle


i right good read as always :)

corburst aka dutch uncle well the apple nederlands far from the tree my friend

[Betty Boop]

fuzzywuzzy;1183237 wrote: I fail to see how any of that ranting has anything to do with GOD.

Coberst you've found a dictionary ....good... now throw it away and speak english. Because you clearly do not have any idea as to how to use grammar.

Big words, little imagination and autistic ramblings mean nothing. For heavens sake, use your own words will you. I feel you have written in a sentence then gone to a dictionary and found the most (what you percieve) as the most intellectual word available. It doesn't work.



You're not well are you.:-2



YOu don't even know what that means. At the very least you're an 'aspergers' sufferer.


I take exception to this post Fuzzy, how dare you claim the things you do here and link it in with autism and aspergers.

I suggest you go and read up on the conditions and broaden your own education a little. Maybe you will realise that people with these conditions are actually far more intelligent than you or I.

[Snowfire]

Betty Boop;1183277 wrote: I take exception to this post Fuzzy, how dare you claim the things you do here and link it in with autism and aspergers.

I suggest you go and read up on the conditions and broaden your own education a little. Maybe you will realise that people with these conditions are actually far more intelligent than you or I.


I agree. Totally uneccessary. Coberst is perhaps vain and rude at most. We're all guilty of that at some point in our posting but to attribute that to autism and aspergers is innapropriate.

You have a calling Fuzzywuzzy. Remote medical diagnosis. If you can help me with this pain I have, I'd be grateful :wah:

[Rapunzel]

Betty Boop;1183277 wrote: I take exception to this post Fuzzy, how dare you claim the things you do here and link it in with autism and aspergers.

I suggest you go and read up on the conditions and broaden your own education a little. Maybe you will realise that people with these conditions are actually far more intelligent than you or I.


I agree with both statements. We have 7 children with various types of autism in our school. One boy has Aspergers and he is incredibly intelligent. The next 2 brightest both have autism. One child with autism knocked on the staff room door the other day and said "I believe there's a commotion in the library". Once someone had been dispatched to sort it out, we all had a chuckle at Amber's turn of phrase. Any other child would have said "There's a punch-up Miss" and "Innit, eh?" She was also the only one to answer questions extremely intelligently when we had a visit from the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra.

[farmer giles]

Snowfire;1183297 wrote: I agree. Totally uneccessary. Coberst is perhaps vain and rude at most. We're all guilty of that at some point in our posting but to attribute that to autism and aspergers is innapropriate.

You have a calling Fuzzywuzzy. Remote medical diagnosis. If you can help me with this pain I have, I'd be grateful :wah:




i dont find corberst rude at all in any way and i have never seen him be even slightly unpleasant to any one :sneaky



that is no way to talk about Barcelona :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[Snowfire]

farmer giles;1183335 wrote:

i dont find corberst rude at all in any way and i have never seen him be even slightly unpleasant to any one :sneaky



that is no way to talk about Barcelona :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl


Not unpleasant, no. But I do think its rude not to acknowledge those that take the time to post in his threads. he very rarely responds and people, I think, generally think its rude to have their efforts completely ignored on what is a discussion forum afterall

[Carolly]

Snowfire;1183352 wrote: Not unpleasant, no. But I do think its rude not to acknowledge those that take the time to post in his threads. he very rarely responds and people, I think, generally think its rude to have their efforts completely ignored on what is a discussion forum afterallTalking in general on that point.....everybody thinks different regarding that issue but I for one totally agree with you.I always try to reply to others posts as I feel its only polite but theres many that dont and alot of the time its because they dont read back or just plainly dont like you I guess and both those points is upto them.I have come to know over the time here who bothers and who dont respond to posts and those that dont I dont bother about now in return.Its every Members choice of course if they respond to an individuals post and that also we must never forget.

[Rapunzel]

Carolly;1183357 wrote: Talking in general on that point.....everybody thinks different regarding that issue but I for one totally agree with you.I always try to reply to others posts as I feel its only polite but theres many that dont and alot of the time its because they dont read back or just plainly dont like you I guess and both those points is upto them.I have come to know over the time here who bothers and who dont respond to posts and those that dont I dont bother about now in return.Its every Members choice of course if they respond to an individuals post and that also we must never forget.


:wah: sorry Carolly, I have to own up to being one of those.

I usually only manage to get on the puter at weekends (and not always then!) I have to pry the kids off cos they're glued on like limpets! :wah:

Then, when I do post I will go back and respond if I remember but sadly I've got a sieve-head and things just fall through the gaps and I forget. Also, if I don't get on again til the next weekend then I've totally forgotten by then. :-5 I'm so sorry if I've ever offended you or anyone else by not replying...it's lack of time plus being a total thickie...but it really IS unintentional. Sowwy!

[Snowfire]

Carolly;1183357 wrote: Talking in general on that point.....everybody thinks different regarding that issue but I for one totally agree with you.I always try to reply to others posts as I feel its only polite but theres many that dont and alot of the time its because they dont read back or just plainly dont like you I guess and both those points is upto them.I have come to know over the time here who bothers and who dont respond to posts and those that dont I dont bother about now in return.Its every Members choice of course if they respond to an individuals post and that also we must never forget.


Yes you're right. I agree with that when talking of the boards in general. We all have threads that either do not interest us or that we would sooner not post in, for various reasons. My point here was specific to Coberst - it was something that was discussed a few days ago on another of his threads. I have no problem with coberst at all, I defended his right in that debate, to post what wanted - a newcomer had said he was spamming. But I do feel dissapointed that he invites people into his threads, often with an opening question but never returns to respond or answer their queries. Its only polite to engage in conversation, someone of whom, you have asked a question.

I'd like to get involved occasionally and told, at least, that I'd missed the point by a country mile, rather than listening to the crickets and the tumbleweed

[Carolly]

Rapunzel;1183365 wrote: :wah: sorry Carolly, I have to own up to being one of those.

I usually only manage to get on the puter at weekends (and not always then!) I have to pry the kids off cos they're glued on like limpets! :wah:

Then, when I do post I will go back and respond if I remember but sadly I've got a sieve-head and things just fall through the gaps and I forget. Also, if I don't get on again til the next weekend then I've totally forgotten by then. :-5 I'm so sorry if I've ever offended you or anyone else by not replying...it's lack of time plus being a total thickie...but it really IS unintentional. Sowwy! :oAhhh Bless.....no babe ive seens loads of replys by you to Posters including myself and you dont have to say sorry for anything my little Munchkin because as ive said its upto that person if they reply or not......but also have to say if people dont respond to me I wont them.....I will do it once....maybe even twice then I just see that poster as a no go area and keep away to which they most likely want anyway:wah:;)

[Carolly]

Snowfire;1183368 wrote: Yes you're right. I agree with that when talking of the boards in general. We all have threads that either do not interest us or that we would sooner not post in, for various reasons. My point here was specific to Coberst - it was something that was discussed a few days ago on another of his threads. I have no problem with coberst at all, I defended his right in that debate, to post what wanted - a newcomer had said he was spamming. But I do feel dissapointed that he invites people into his threads, often with an opening question but never returns to respond or answer their queries. Its only polite to engage in conversation, someone of whom, you have asked a question.

I'd like to get involved occasionally and told, at least, that I'd missed the point by a country mile, rather than listening to the crickets and the tumbleweed :wah: I have to say that ive seen a few Threads where a Member has done their OP and disappeared ....never to be seen again on that Thread.I can understand if the Thread turns nasty ....but also we have to remember that once a Thread is created it belongs to FG and not the person who started the Thread and guess they may just be trying to get peoples views on a certain subject and help create a good Thread for their fellow Members....but no its not something I would do without answering.....but there again im a Cockney and we like abit of banter:D;)

[farmer giles]

Snowfire;1183352 wrote: Not unpleasant, no. But I do think its rude not to acknowledge those that take the time to post in his threads. he very rarely responds and people, I think, generally think its rude to have their efforts completely ignored on what is a discussion forum afterall


he has replied to me a couple of times ... i really did not no what to say back to him so i never replied

i wonder if he thinks i am being rude to him

thats the problem with discussion forums :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[Rapunzel]

Carolly;1183372 wrote: Ahhh Bless.....no babe ive seens loads of replys by you to Posters including myself and you dont have to say sorry for anything my little Munchkin because as ive said its upto that person if they reply or not......but also have to say if people dont respond to me I wont them.....I will do it once....maybe even twice then I just see that poster as a no go area and keep away to which they most likely want anyway:wah:;)


awww thankyou I was just about to log off and go cook dinner but thought I'd have a sneaky extra half hour! Just remember in future - Mel's a sievehead - not rude! :wah: Thanks. Am off now. Have a nice week folks. *waves*

[Carolly]

Rapunzel;1183425 wrote: awww thankyou I was just about to log off and go cook dinner but thought I'd have a sneaky extra half hour! Just remember in future - Mel's a sievehead - not rude! :wah: Thanks. Am off now. Have a nice week folks. *waves*Bye Sweetie and im waving back;):driving:

[along-for-the-ride]

I have had the honor of cobert's reponse to a post I had made in one of his threads. I do notice that he seldom does respond. I will confess here that I do not understand his observations many times. I try to understand. I respect coberst, but I would like to get to know him on a more human level.......and not soley in the "meeting of the minds" perspective.



I believe God does have a sense of humor and that coberst should start a joke thread of his own. There. I said it.

[Snowfire]

along-for-the-ride;1183695 wrote: I have had the honor of cobert's reponse to a post I had made in one of his threads. I do notice that he seldom does respond. I will confess here that I do not understand his observations many times. I try to understand. I respect coberst, but I would like to get to know him on a more human level.......and not soley in the "meeting of the minds" perspective.



I believe God does have a sense of humor and that coberst should start a joke thread of his own. There. I said it.


Good idea.

Maybe we can coax him with some philosophical humour

How many existentialists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Two. One to change the lightbulb and one to observe how the lightbulb symbolizes an incandescent beacon of subjectivity in a netherworld of Cosmic Nothingness.



He probably gets thrown that one all the time down the pub :rolleyes:

[Oscar Namechange]

Snowfire;1183699 wrote: Good idea.

Maybe we can coax him with some philosophical humour

How many existentialists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Two. One to change the lightbulb and one to observe how the lightbulb symbolizes an incandescent beacon of subjectivity in a netherworld of Cosmic Nothingness.



He probably gets thrown that one all the time down the pub :rolleyes: On another thread a member had googled Coberst's name and then linked the many many forums that he had posted the same thread on. Multiple forums and multiple repeated threads, that's why i no longer try to debate anything he says. Check this forum's opening post out by Bad Wolf.....

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Coberst-15598t.php

There are many many more if you google Coberst.

[Snowfire]

oscar;1183708 wrote: On another thread a member had googled Coberst's name and then linked the many many forums that he had posted the same thread on. Multiple forums and multiple repeated threads, that's why i no longer try to debate anything he says. Check this forum's opening post out by Bad Wolf.....

Science Forum - Coberst

There are many many more if you google Coberst.


It manifested itself in this thread he started a few days ago, so I was aware of the feeling from other forums

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/philo ... ation.html

[coberst]

Wit is about many things but power may be its most important characteristic. I think that Jews and African Americans are successful wits in our society because wit provides them both an escape from the world’s discrimination and because it provides the witty with power that serves as a defense against the strong hate and discrimination that the world showers on Jews and Blacks.

The other day I listened to an interview on NPR with Jerry Seinfeld. The interview took place many years ago before Seinfeld had made his appearance on the “Jerry Seinfeld” show. Jerry said something that surprised and impressed me. Jerry made it clear that he considers wit to be a very powerful force when welded in the hands of the comic.

Wit allows the comic to manipulate the audience into becoming completely in the control of the comic. The successful comic quickly grabs the audience and makes them her captive, which s/he can lead in whatever direction desired.

Freud wrote “Wit and the Unconscious” early in his career. This book is considered to be Freud’s most significant contribution to the theory of wit, which is, by extension, the theory of art.

In this book Freud “affirms the connection between art and the pleasure-principle…he also affirms the connection between art and childishness; however childishness is not a reproach, but the ideal kingdom of pleasure which art knows how to recover…with scant effort…Play on words—the technique of wit—is recovered when thought is allowed to sink into the unconscious…Freud’s analysis of wit invites extension to the whole domain of art.”

Psychoanalysis is about the nature of repression; the essential characteristic of the human psyche.

There is a constant conflict between the conscious and the unconscious. Societies repress the individual and the individual represses the self.

Neurotic behavior, dreams, and various “Freudian slips” provide us with e-mails from the unconscious that elude the conscious repression mechanism. These behavior characteristics are meaningful because they manifest the purpose of the unconscious that remains hidden from consciousness.

The conscious mind strenuously disowns and resists the rumblings of the unconscious. The conscious self disowns and resists its human nature.

Neurosis is the label given to these human phenomena of conflict between the conscious and unconscious self. All of us are neurotic to one degree or another. When this neurosis interferes with ‘normal’ human behavior then, and only then, does it require outside interference by society.

Universal neurosis is the analogy of “original sin” for theological doctrine.

In “Life against Death” Norman Brown develops, with the help of Freudian theory, a theory of art. There are no paradigms in art; the psychoanalytic themes in art offer a perspective in the doctrine of “there is no single meaning to any work of art”.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Betty Boop;1183277 wrote: I take exception to this post Fuzzy, how dare you claim the things you do here and link it in with autism and aspergers.

I suggest you go and read up on the conditions and broaden your own education a little. Maybe you will realise that people with these conditions are actually far more intelligent than you or I.


Actually Betty I do know someone with an aspergers condition and I have shown these writings to a leading psych here who looks after my friend. When he suggested about looking the condition up I did and learnt a few things about it.. Then I came across cobersts repetative writings on another forum 9he scatters this stuff on a lot of forums and showed the psych if this is what was meant.

He said it was a perfect example of the way an aspergers sufferer focuses time on subject matter ie in this case 'words' and 'wording'. They seem intelligent but break it down and it's exactly what we would say about the subject using less substantiated words. People with aspergers are extremely competent in their subject of choice and become emmersed in thier chosen subject. Because of the severe shyness they suffer and lack of and inability of normal social skills they will only interact with others who also have and interest in the chosen subject helping them to not have to talk about anything else personal or socially 'normal' conversations.

Someone very close to me has aspergers and my own son shows extreme aspergers traits. He's functional socially but only just, but this condition will be a problem for him later. He also has his chosen subject matter at this early age. Not only does he collect beanie kids (sounds perfectly normal) but he has to know the fibres and matierials they are made from, the dates in which these matierials came into being and used for production, who designed each beanie kid an so on. This will later change to another subject matter when he exhausts everything he has to know about this current subject. Hopefully it will be law. this condition takes it's toll eventually. And I believe if coberst is not a 'bot' then it will also take it's toll on him/her. And on the matter of coberst. I've posted in his threads and have recieved no reply then used his own word games to post and got three replys. sorry I'm comfortable in what I have discovered and written.

[Kathy Ellen]

I'm really sorry that you were hurt by this post Betty:-4. That's interesting info that Mags has posted about aspergers and her son's condition.



I have a wee one in my class who has aspergers ,and she is very high functioning as long as she has one-on-one attention and someone to keep her on task and focused. She absolutely amazes me with her higher-level math skills.



Good luck to both you and Mags with your children's. condition. I really need to continue learning more about aspergers.

[Betty Boop]

fuzzywuzzy;1184095 wrote: Actually Betty I do know someone with an aspergers condition and I have shown these writings to a leading psych here who looks after my friend. When he suggested about looking the condition up I did and learnt a few things about it.. Then I came across cobersts repetative writings on another forum 9he scatters this stuff on a lot of forums and showed the psych if this is what was meant.

He said it was a perfect example of the way an aspergers sufferer focuses time on subject matter ie in this case 'words' and 'wording'. They seem intelligent but break it down and it's exactly what we would say about the subject using less substantiated words. People with aspergers are extremely competent in their subject of choice and become emmersed in thier chosen subject. Because of the severe shyness they suffer and lack of and inability of normal social skills they will only interact with others who also have and interest in the chosen subject helping them to not have to talk about anything else personal or socially 'normal' conversations.

Someone very close to me has aspergers and my own son shows extreme aspergers traits. He's functional socially but only just, but this condition will be a problem for him later. He also has his chosen subject matter at this early age. Not only does he collect beanie kids (sounds perfectly normal) but he has to know the fibres and matierials they are made from, the dates in which these matierials came into being and used for production, who designed each beanie kid an so on. This will later change to another subject matter when he exhausts everything he has to know about this current subject. Hopefully it will be law. this condition takes it's toll eventually. And I believe if coberst is not a 'bot' then it will also take it's toll on him/her. And on the matter of coberst. I've posted in his threads and have recieved no reply then used his own word games to post and got three replys. sorry I'm comfortable in what I have discovered and written.


My son is diagnosed with 'high achieving aspergers', so you can be well assured that I have done my research and I live with the condition 24 hours a day.

Coberst you've found a dictionary ....good... now throw it away and speak english. Because you clearly do not have any idea as to how to use grammar.

Big words, little imagination and autistic ramblings mean nothing. For heavens sake, use your own words will you. I feel you have written in a sentence then gone to a dictionary and found the most (what you percieve) as the most intellectual word available. It doesn't work.



You're not well are you.:-2



YOu don't even know what that means. At the very least you're an 'aspergers' sufferer.Your original post is belittling and derogatory, not only to Coberst but also to people who happen to have autism or aspergers.

Maybe you should take a look at your own use of language, maybe then you won't make posts that appear to be taking cheap shots at others. Which, by the way, is the quickest way to alienate such people, they have enough trouble trying to be understood in this world as it is!

They are not ill, far from it, they just happen to be wired up differently.

[Snowfire]

I agree with Betty. Fuzzywuzzy, there is nothing in your original post that shows any understanding of the conditions. You used the terms as derogitory accusations....."autistic ramblings"

Your next post tried to cover tracks show some feeling but was let down by..." I'm comfortable with what I discovered and have written "

You shouldnt be based on your rantings

[fuzzywuzzy]

No it's not derogatory. Every single person on earth has a level of autism it's impossible not to. But behaviourly we learn how to be other than those traits, by socialisation, and behavioural conditioning. Aspergers is different to autism in that it's a 'level' of autism, ie people have traits of autism and not severe autism itself.

Shyness is a trait of Autism, not being able to stand the sound of two people talking at the same time and becoming upset by it is a trait of autism. loud sounds and the motions of waves at the beach and becoming uncomfortable with it is a trait of autism . There's a simple test to see the level of normal autism traits in the majority of the populace .........run your fingernails down a black board and see who cringes. It's a common trait among the populace, it's an autistic trait not to like the sound. Interesting isn't it?.

Betty I don't see aspergers as a problem but I do identify it as a trait to be considered when interacting with people. It's normally diagnosed in the male population after the age of forty. But it's becoming a more studied condition and it's explaining a lot about the differences in genetic traits of all human beings. I live with two Aspies and have had to learn very quickly about the condition.

Snowfire I never 'cover' my tracks..........ever. and I stand by my posts.

Asperger syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia very brief round down of the condition.

[fuzzywuzzy]

There, is god a practical joker or are we just ignorant to his purpose?

you asked for philosophical humour? And coberst responded, did you see any humour?

[Betty Boop]

fuzzywuzzy;1184192 wrote: No it's not derogatory. Every single person on earth has a level of autism it's impossible not to. But behaviourly we learn how to be other than those traits, by socialisation, and behavioural conditioning. Aspergers is different to autism in that it's a 'level' of autism, ie people have traits of autism and not severe autism itself.

Shyness is a trait of Autism, not being able to stand the sound of two people talking at the same time and becoming upset by it is a trait of autism. loud sounds and the motions of waves at the beach and becoming uncomfortable with it is a trait of autism . There's a simple test to see the level of normal autism traits in the majority of the populace .........run your fingernails down a black board and see who cringes. It's a common trait among the populace, it's an autistic trait not to like the sound. Interesting isn't it?.

Betty I don't see aspergers as a problem but I do identify it as a trait to be considered when interacting with people. It's normally diagnosed in the male population after the age of forty. But it's becoming a more studied condition and it's explaining a lot about the differences in genetic traits of all human beings. I live with two Aspies and have had to learn very quickly about the condition.

Snowfire I never 'cover' my tracks..........ever. and I stand by my posts.

Asperger syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia very brief round down of the condition.


Sorry, but it was a derogatory post, you called them ILL, when they are no such thing.

You needn't keep spouting on about the condition either it looks like you are just trying to justify yourself, when all you need to do is sit back, take a look and realise that you could have worded your post so differently.

Actually how about sitting back and realising that the post was actually pointless in the first place, I can't even begin to imagine what point you thought it would actually serve.