Kevin Beal

Heya Patch! I bet there's a lot more you could say. I, for one, would like to hear it I think that for a lot of people getting into philosophy and testing it out, it's a great deal more than a curiosity or a hobby. For me it slapped me across the face and demanded that I be honest with myself. Exciting and scary at the same time. I never heard anyone make that much sense before. I thought philosophy was some dull and boringly pedantic mental masturbatory crapfest before I stumbled upon this show. What was it about the Trayvon Martin video that left you wanting more?

He recommended Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). He's also recommended Internal Family Systems (IFS) Therapy insofar as it can help you connect with what he calls the "mecosystem". He himself went to a Jungian therapist who he said was especially good. The school of psychotherapy is not as important as the allegiance and alliance the client has with the therapist, and the commitment of both parties. I've heard of bad IFS therapists and bad CBT therapists and bad Jungians. I'm very sorry that you are in the state you are in now. That lack of connection in the presence of other people, especially when they claim to love you can be agonizing. You've got to protect your heart like a mother lion protects her kittens. Roar and get yourself the help you need, my friend. Life's too short for anything less than genuine connection.

Hi Ravate! I appreciate your unique perspective and would like to ask some clarifying questions if you're up for it Have you considered anarchism? You don't align with any political parties, but it's unclear if you support political action as a means to achieve social change. I now consider myself an anarchist as a result of considering the arguments put forward through the show. Practical Anarchy and Everyday Anarchy are books Stef wrote which are quite good. I highly recommend them if you're interested. You mention that you believe "in the goodness of all men, and I am forgiving" and then later mention that you "can grow to be loyal to almost a foolish degree, for it is just who [you are]". Perhaps it's just cynicism on my part, but do you think that these two things could be related? You said that "I think all they need is a new perspective, and they would stop in their tracks and cry for what they have done, and are doing", but have you been able to achieve this with people? I've tried and was unable to, unfortunately. I've become less hopeful in dealing with people's false selves. Also, I don't know the reason, but I feel compelled to share with you this podcast: FDR70 How to control a human soul http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3 Welcome to the boards

Just curious. Have you watched the debate I posted? This question is addressed in some depth.

Hi Lee! Tell us a little about yourself. What is it about the show that drew you in? The range of topics varies quite a bit. Is it more the anarchism type topics or the relationship content? How did you find the show? Welcome to the boards

Even when I know that I'm at risk for deflation, I still celebrate the good times. This was important for me since I was so depressed for so long. I would forget that I was ever happy, and being able to remember and look back on those times gave me a clearer picture of my ups and downs and reminded me of things I can be genuinely grateful for. That way I can have at least some curious motivation to explore what anxieties or pain the depression is suppressing. Also celebrating your successes is important when you've been taught to neglect yourself so you can reinforce your sense of self and how important your life really is. That sinking feeling, the dread may be a holdover from a time where celebrating your successes meant you were risking humiliation. Not that any of this was my motivation for posting. I posted because I'm genuinely glad to hear it. That's all.

Great to hear

Boy howdy do I wish idealism were true!

I actually would prefer people believe in gods than be agnostics. All I can ever glean from agnostic arguments is some vague emotional argument that boils down to "it's arrogant to think you could know!" But maybe those are just the agnostics I've talked to. Perhaps there are some rigorous logicians in your bunch. At any rate, here's the debt debate I've ever seen (it fully addresses on your argument multiple times)

I've never done IFS, but if you go and you still find that it's not for you, certainly there are other psychotherapy approaches which work and are good. Stef has mentioned multiple times that he's a big fan of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and he's someone who's demonstrated that he's processed a great many parts of himself since his range as a philosopher is so broad. He went to a Jungian therapist, apparently, and I did too. She said some mystical things on occasion and we would talk about how much I disliked it when she would talk about that stuff (e.x. collective unconscious). It ended up being really helpful in terms of becoming comfortable being in disagreement with people. Shadow work in Jungian therapy is a bit like working with exiles in IFS, and I found it enormously helpful. I've got a long ways to go to process things from my past (and am currently working on a way to quantify it to some degree), but I've definitely relaxed a few defenses and integrated them as allies (as compared to a blended part in IFS terms). I know some people who have found it really valuable and I really like the way they break down different types of parts so you can have a sophisticated vocabulary in how you go about talking about a problem, and I read Jay Earley's book that everyone recommends. Well most of it anyway. This might speak more to something in me, rather than as any kind of criticism of the theory, but I absolutely couldn't stand the description of Self in the book. That the Self is always curious and compassionate and if you're not then that means you're blended with a part and all of that. I have no logical argument and am probably wrong, but despite that I feel a sense of certainty that this is false, and a powerful irritation that it's portrayed that way. The research I've seen says that the kind of therapy you do is not anywhere near as important as the client-therapist relationship itself. But maybe if I had done IFS therapy, I might tell you otherwise

It depends on what you mean by "acceptable". It's immoral to steal from or attack the inhabitants, but if I have no choice as I'm starving or something, as ridiculous a situation as that would be, I'd still negotiate with them. If "acceptable" is subjective (as in the colloquial sense) then imo, no.

Do you ever see something happening with one of your students involving parental abuse / neglect and find that you don't feel like you can say anything, and resent everything about that situation, even feeling guilty for not saying something?

Great post! This is one of my favorites so far. A favorite perhaps because of it's relevance, but also because of the clear description of what is going on and why it is happening. As someone who has known a good number of people who pull this shit, I've become quite sensitive to it. I really like the emphasis on guilt being a violation of your own standards, and how a manipulative type of person learns to exploit that to their advantage, so it doesn't look like it's something being imposed on them from the outside, when actually that's exactly what it is. Enough empathy to hurt, but not enough to actually help. Yuck! And I think it's always funny to see the failures of manipulative people, to put it into perspective, how pathetic it really is. I think that cousin of this exploitation is the "love" of selfish people. They get their hooks in by establishing "I love you, Kevin" and suddenly the nature of the relationship has changed. A truly loving relationship includes genuinely selfless acts that honor the virtue of the other. That is like free money in the eyes of a narcissist. It's like a thief who has convinced a neighborhood that he's there to protect their stuff. If only they can get you to say "I love you, too", like words to a curse which bind you in their service. And it would be bad enough if their "I love you, Kevin" just resulted in me giving them my TV or something, but what people have wanted from me in the past is my genuine love merely for the virtue of being in proximity to me (i.e. not earning my love). It's repulsive to me, like I'm some kind of love whore to be used at whim. I really don't want to be used to fill the empty void in other people. First off, even if my love for them were genuine, it would never be enough, but also my love is incredibly fucking important to me and they are not deserving of it. I don't want to betray my love for the sake of a selfish person's greed.

I'm sorry about the mercury poisoning. I looked it up and it's worse than I remember. I wish you a speedy recovery. And I get that you are put off by a lot of what you hear and see. But without reference to argument and evidence, we have no way of determining if it's the content which offends or the truth which offends your sensibilities. Personally, I find rational and righteous moral certainty to be refreshing, liberating, wonderful. It's a state I strive to achieve (prematurely on occasion). And I don't think it's true at all to say that Stef is conservative. He cites the work of liberals often, especially on matters of war. Liberals and conservatives both get things right some of the time, and it could be that one of the things conservatives get right is the effects of single motherhood and promiscuity and other gender issues you've seen Stef talk about. It's not really a conservative or liberal moral issue if it's just the truth. That's a philosophical matter. I was full blown communist prior to discovering libertarianism, Ron Paul and Stef. I would seriously have considered rioting at Fox News HQ, or Rush Limbaugh's place. Now I just care whether or not people are using rational methodologies for determining truth from falsehood, and sometimes that includes Rush.

I shared this an a previous graphic of yours on facebook.

Why do you use a pseudonym then?

FDR349 You Are Not Broken http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_349_You_Are_Not_Broken.mp3

One thing that I have learned is that people who regard themselves as unfixable tend to rationalize their destructive behavior. The temptation being that because I cannot be fixed, I am less responsible for that brokenness. A person who is in a wheelchair cannot be expected to walk up stairs, and neither can an emotionally broken person be expected to live with virtue and demand of themselves and others mutually beneficial relationships, do win-win negotiation, etc. Something must take the place of a broken true self. That thing is neurosis. In the case of a person who avoids responsibility, this inevitably means resenting people who show them it is possible to live a life of virtue, and twisting the truth to fit their own agenda. And they desperately want other people to reinforce that narcissistic bubble reality for them, so they invite other people to accept their own faulty premises with the lure of "you don't have to feel responsible, either". When people tell me that they are unfixable, what I see is an alien goo of neurosis growing and glowing on them, emanating a pathogen that I don't want to be infected with. A disease which appeals to people's avoidances is a radioactive contagion I wouldn't even wear a hazmat suit around. I don't doubt that you are broken, but it is not a virtue of yours. It's a wound, not a superpower. Please stop inviting people to regard themselves as unfixable and broken. It is a kindness to spread the burden of responsibility, because it is a burden which makes you stronger. Because it is real.

Yea man. I'm really sorry. I don't like being called names either. If you just wanted to share something you found entertaining, and not get pulled into an argument about the video, then I can definitely sympathize. I see now that I mistook your comments about it just being a joke and not to take offense or anything, to be antagonizing. I didn't actually find it funny, but maybe that's just me. This thread has escalated into something pretty terrible, and I thought maybe if I could apologize and empathize that we could resolve this issue and move on to other topics that are a little less triggering. You don't want to get into an endlessly escalating back and forth with people over text on a message board, right? That can be fun for a bit, but then it just weighs on you having people antagonize you. Provoke and be provoked. It's just grating. Like my soul is being slowly sucked out of my body. Do you know what I mean?

It would be strange if it were up for debate. Why aren't we resolving this disagreement using violence?

[delete]

What would it mean to say that something factual supports violations of the NAP being wrong? I mean, it's not like 1 + 1 equalling 2 is a factual matter. Whether or not facts support it (whatever that would even mean) doesn't make it true or false. It's true by definition. And how do you know that there is "nothing factual that supports that it is wrong to initiate violence"? Is this through an analysis of facts, or did you figure this out a priori? I thought I knew what morality was, but when I read your responses, I don't even know what the debate is supposed to be about. All of a sudden, I'm violently aggressing dirt and flowers, and it's a matter of empirical observation that this or that is immoral, now. Are you aware that it would come off as just a little strange comparing tilling the soil to violently attacking another human being?

This is entirely too serious of a response. You need to relax, man. And if you are not taking confrontation seriously, then it's you who's doing it wrong. I mean, wouldn't that just be insane to be casually confronting people about things you don't care about? What a weirdo!

You know, all I said was "not funny". I don't understand how that makes me uptight, but it's just kind of funny that you say that you are all about being confrontational, but that you don't think people should take things too seriously. Since confrontation is exactly synonymous with taking things seriously, I don't know how anyone wins this game with you. You set up the rules for yourself to break, but everybody else, is wrong and uptight. It's just sort of ridiculous isn't it? Can you laugh at yourself and the delicious irony? Or are you going to be uptight?

If the problem is putting other people in harms way, then giving a group of people the automatic right to initiate violence in order to solve that problem is an immediate logic fail. Violence = bad & violence = good I'm much more interested in preventative measures against violence and immorality rather than guillotine–after the fact "solutions". Police do not prevent crime. Adding more laws or funding to the police force doesn't reduce the immorality in society. The anarchic solution would be to allow the free market to solve issues around violence and protection of people and property. The free market solution that will always be the most cost effective is whatever solution can prevent it the earliest. Prisons are just about the most expensive way conceivable to deal with criminals, and they never seem to capture the biggest white collar criminals, and instead opt for dissidents and marijuana smokers. This isn't for Mark's sake. He never listens anyway. He's comes once every couple of months to post some "gotcha anarchists!" message which has already been addressed in the first few podcasts in the series, 9 years ago. Suggesting to me that he hasn't really listened to the show much.