Pepin

Hi, I am quite glad to hear that this is something you are interested in and willing to take action on. I am not a parent, but I've made a lot of progress within the last couple of years in regard to my perception of children. I used to dislike them quite a lot and had a difficult time empathizing and sympathizing with them. I'd say I have pretty much gotten past that through the self-work I have done. I have also made many positive changes to myself. Stefan has a video about self-knowledge here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM21g10csv4 A book is Self-Therapy by James Earley. Its focus is on the internal family systems model, which in the FDR community is often referred to the mecosystem. I'd also advise a lot of thought and imagining yourself in the child's shoes. It may also help to think in terms of how actions in the present during childhood have a large impact brain structure in the future. Also, always being aware that their brain are not developed and that so many of the things they do "wrong" are a result of something they have no control over. It might sound odd, but I'd also recommend meditation. There are proven benefits, many that would aid you in your pursuit. You only need 5-15 minutes a day to do nothing.

I think your explanation was pretty good Robofox. It is also a good way to understanding time dilation. You are always traveling at the speed of light through space-time, so if you are travelling at 95% the speed of light through space: you will be traveling through time to a small extent. If you had a laser with you and shone it in the direction you were traveling, you would measure the laser to be traveling at the speed of light because time is passing much slower. If you were to measure the speed of a laser some someone who was traveling at 2% the speed of light, you would also measure the speed to be the same, and this is because light travels exclusively through space and not through time.

Wesley has it down pretty good. If you have any specific examples, feel free to post them.

It is a psychological model that treats a person as not being a whole, yet rather a multiplicity of parts. Stefan calls this the mecosystem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X47Qxa9AWWc

Sounds rather frustrating. I would recommend not having these sorts of conversations with these people. From your description, it seems like early on you could have come to the conclusion that furthering the discussion would have been pointless. Also, continuing to talk to them when they already demonstrated that they don't want to listen to reason and evidence is a bit crazy, but I mean this in a in lighthearted way of course. I think a good comeback to the mentally ill line would be "you're projecting".

I like this video quite a lot. It reminds me quite a lot of IFS, though she seems to put it more in terms of abnormality. Being a person who has spent most of my life observing people, I would put forward that most people are fragmented, and that they associate any voice or impulse with themselves.

So it seems like you read the messages without her consent. Provided this is true, regardless of the contents of the text, I have doubts that the relationship is going to work out. Reading personal messages of your partner is a major sign that you do not trust her as well as being a major violation of privacy. If you were to tell her what you did in a circumstance where you found nothing, how do you think she'd react?

I feel as though I am missing something. This girl is dating you? She is talking about how she loved the deceased friend? She is talking about past sex and the currently possibility of having sex with your friend Don? You are there for this conversation? Were you included in the "only one girl" part?

I wouldn't call it attacking, though I can understand that it likely felt confrontational. Something I'd advise is to not have any end in mind in these sorts of conversation. Like instead of telling her to say "it wasn't fair", which happens to be a conclusion, ask some more questions. Within myself and others I've found that a large block is applying concepts to ourselves while being fully capable of applying the to others. So I might not find how I was treated by someone to be an issue, but I would consider it to be quite a problem when I see someone else being treated like this. The obvious way to get around such a block is to ask if it would be right for someone to do this to someone else, and if they reply no, ask if it would be right for them to do it to you. Something else to keep in mind is that some people are going to take time to accept what is in front of them. I am very much like this. Whenever I discover something concerning within my life, I understand the issue with it rationally very quickly, yet there is still a large momentum in the other direction. It may take an hour to a month to internalize.

A few questions. What are your father's political views? Why would you ask to see all of the rings on his fingers? I don't know why, but I keep cracking up at the image of someone having rings on all of fingers and showing them off, let alone that person being Obama.

Your use of the term energy isn't consistent with the physical definition nor is it held consistent within your theory.

This sounds quite awful to experience. Can you give some information about your childhood? Particularly about you family?

It is always great to hear these sorts of stories and how it is possible to gain freedom from the past through self-knowledge. I found the bit about narcissism interesting. I am curious, where do you think those traits come from?

I'm not quite following. Can you expand upon what you want this thread to be about?

I'd describe myself as having a giant filter that makes me incapable of understanding or accepting what does not make sense rationally. In the past, I wasn't very much aware of the filter, but I was aware that I didn't understand what anyone was talking about. I always felt like the answers I was given were simplified, like telling a child about the stork in response to "where do babies come from?". I had quite a difficult time understanding words and rhetoric. Even more, I was completely shocked and confused towards the end of high school when I found out that teachers were government employees. I would say that my view of society was for the most part was more an anarchic view, and I'd liken this to the points made in Everyday Anarchy. I think my perception of markets and businesses helped this quite a lot. Though more so, any irrational view of where the government fit into the bigger picture didn't quite make it past my filter. Where things get confusing is that I am an ecosystem of parts, and some parts were quite patriotic and propagandized. This occasionally came out in a few essays, particularly one supporting Bush and the Iraq war, though the whole essay was really a critique of terrible liberal arguments. It is a rather difficult to get this across without it sounding like it contradictory, but trust that it isn't. If anybody knows what I am talking about and can get it across better, I'd appreciate it.

David, I'd recommend going through the Introduction to Philosophy series to get a fuller understanding of Stefan's use of the term "exist".

I play. Never done a multi-player game, but I'd be up for one. I am Pepin on steam. http://steamcommunity.com/id/Pepin/

Sounds like Full Metal Alchemist, the line rings a bell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Oiy3Z2m0c

I feel like you are pushing her a little much.

Is this in regard to aggressive acts, or does it not matter? Me and my brother rough housed like people would wrestle during practice on a wrestling team. I have a difficult time understanding it in context to bullying, like a different mental picture pops up. I get the impression from the article that it would be included, but am unsure.

What did you find was not congruent? An example from my life is that I tended to apply reason and evidence to everything, but my belief in religion. I was quite aware that it was something I was keep rational thought away from as I was rather certain it would destroy my belief. After listening to enough podcasts about integrity and the psychology of the family, I understood why I was doing what I was doing, and decided to be consistent with my values

I am rather encouraged by this movement as a means of promoting atheism and skepticism. A decrease in the number of children being threatened with eternal damnation and not being taught to have anti-empirical beliefs is quite good.

The strategy is just to associate something negative with a concept or person, a form of conditioning, and it isn't about anything rational. If asked about the use of the word, the reporter would say that they were commenting about the government not providing services, which is what libertarians advocate.

If evidence was a requirement for religions Then this standard would invalidate all religions A result would be that there nobody would believe in deities Therefore no religion is a religion

Welcome to the board. How has philosophy had an impact on how you live your life?