EclecticIdealist

If you are the person who negged my post for suggesting one needs a therapist for thinking there is anyone that doesn't need a therapist, you need a therapist, and perhaps a tutor in reading comprehension, humor, and irony. (Wondering if I'll get another "neg" for this post too. ).

My younger was born with a congenitally small urinary tract which caused him problems with elimination. Doctors performed an operation to allow him to pass urine more easily, but this resulted in him frequently wetting the bed as he lacked the muscular development to hold off while unconscious. Eventually, he grew out of it. I do not believe the cause of his nocturnal enuresis is the most typical cause, however. Two things seem to be the most common causes, and both working in conjunction may be at play. First, your body may not be producing enough of a particular regulatory hormone while you sleep which basically tell the kidneys to stop producing so much waste water. The hormone is ADH or anti-diuretic hormone. If your body does not produce enough of this hormone, your kidneys will keep on filling your bladder while you sleep to the point that you may start "leaking". The other issue is that your may be a very deep sleeper. If this is the case, you may simply be staying asleep or "too asleep" to realize what is happening and take the normal actions to relieve yourself in a more convenient place. These two may be working together preventing you from waking when you need to relive yourself. You can of course make sure you relieve yourself before going to bed and possibly consider upping your sodium intake a little and avoiding consuming liquids a few hours before going to bed in order to be more likely to retain the water your body does have until you are awake, but this would be more of a work-around than a fix if you're not producing enough ADH. Nevertheless, you are correct to consider the possibility that with the drop in mass that you may have lost some muscle tone. If that is the case, then you'll probably find great benefit in practicing your Kegels. Lastly, though it is less likely if you are average or below average BMI, you may want to get your prostate checked as the problem you are experiencing may be BPH or "benign prostate hypertrophy" which could be affecting your muscles' normal ability to effectively control the flow of urine. I suspect that the issue is most likely an ADH deficiency, but it could be an issue of muscle tone. It may be a combination of multiple factors and thus more difficult for your physicians to diagnose. Getting your blood hormone level for ADH production at night may be a good next step to take.

That you would even consider the possibility that there is anyone that does not need a therapist is incontrovertible proof that you need therapy.

All morality must be derived from sense data and observation of the nature of things? Perhaps you would be so kind to walk us through the process from sense data and observation of the nature of things to any finding of morality or immorality?

If everything that exists exists as a non-extended, non-material locus of experience, then there isn't ANYTHING ELSE. You're the only thing that exists, and everything else is entirely a delusional creation of your schizophrenic mind. There is no "other" there are no separate entities with separate experiences. There can be no revelation. Asked an answered. The answers won't change simply because you don't like the answers that were already given and ask the question a second, third, fourth, ad infinitum time. Why do we need to respirate air if the lungs do everything? The mind does not exist without the brain. The body does not process oxygen with the lungs. The mind is the functioning of the brain, just as the respiration is the functioning of the lungs, contraction and relaxation are the functioning of the muscles, etc. No, it does not. Mind is the "doing" of the brain. The "principle of least action" is not an accurately delineated and described principle. Were the principle true as you seem to believe it to be, there would never be over-population of animals species leading to over-grazing and subsequent mass-starvation and sometimes the completely decimation of entire herds or more. I understand. You seem to have the mentality of a baby... that if you close your eyes, the world disappears, despite the fact that it does not disappear for anyone else with their eyes open (excepting of course those who have or are in the process of going blind). This is a very infantile apprehension of reality which mistakes subjective perception for objective reality, or denies objective reality altogether. Again, already asked and answered. Your subjective experience of the apple with your senses does not create or change the nature of the apple in any way. Your actions upon the apple may do that, but not your mere perception (or the cessation of the perception) of the apple. Subjective perception is different from Objective reality. Subjective perception leads to erroneous conceptions of reality. Consensus between multiple individuals' subjective perceptions leads to a more accurate conception of reality, but such a conception will only ever be approximate.

Revelation from a being you already admit is nothing more than a figment of your imagination... "... everything that exists exists as a monad, a non-extended, non-material locus of experience (perception, desire)." While it is true that the only thing we can know with absolute certainty is our own existence and thoughts, we can with reasonable and relative certainty (absent evidence to the contrary such as hallucinations that others do not experience) trust that what our minds perceive to be sensory input from the sensory receptors of our bodies is actual data about a real, material world that is independent of our subjective experience of it. There is no problem of influence. Matter affects the mind via the senses--physical sensations converted into electrical signals which are transmitted to the brain. The brain incorporates the sensory information mapped to various regions of the brain into sensory perceptions. These perceptions combine to form concepts which are processed by regions of the brain governing the formation and storage of memory and those which govern higher reasoning and logic, as well as emotion and desire. The brain responds to concepts and desires by sending impulses to the regions of the brain controlling the muscles of body. These things while not fully and completely understood, are largely understood by anyone who takes the trouble to learn about them. Only ignorance allows the dualism to remain an untenable problem. There are many phenomena that ignorant anti-materialist idealists have considered inexplicable that are later explained quite satisfactorily to the rational who accept the likelihood of materialism. The mind is not epiphenomenal in the sense that it is the natural result that arises consequently, not secondarily, from the formation of a sufficiently complex brain. It is simply the natural consequence of complexity that arises from a self-referential (self-sensing) data processing system. Under the premise of materialism, the ontological status of an object that no one is looking at doesn't change. Its existence is non-determinative of conscious observation. Such a notion is an all too common misunderstanding of the "observer effect" of quantum mechanics. The "observation" is not that of a conscious entity, but rather the imposition of sensory apparatus which has the effect of changing the energy state (and therefore the momentum) of the observed sub-atomic or atomic particles.

Beyond physicality, beyond cause, beyond simplicity, beyond complexity, beyond categorization, beyond rationality, beyond reality, beyond credulity, beyond incredulity... in short, your God is anything and everything you need He/She/It/They to be - completely non-falsifiable, and beyond any rational justification for belief. So how can "the Creator" cause anything, including existence while being outside of time and space? Your idealism is wholly non-falsifiable and holds absolutely no practical predictive value. It in fact makes you the creator of everything including the imaginary, irrational Creator you profess to believe in. As such it can be gratuitously refuted without any further justification as being nothing more than narcissistic delusion.

There must be an infinite regression of causality. If there is not an infinite regression of causality, then "the Creator" is a being that exists without any physicality and without any cause. How then can an infinitely complex being simply exist without physicality or causality? When has that ever happened? It is posited, in my opinion, only because the alternative is for some, unfathomable. Why? Why is there no way? If it's not possible, then your Creator must exist outside of time, space, and causality, which makes your creator in all ways Supernatural and in no way empirically demonstrable. What is the basis of your assertion that nothing material is infinite? The universe by definition can be considered both material and infinite. It might not be, but there's no way to prove one way or the other. To suggest that everything material is a proejction in the minds of those experiencing anything suggest that there is no material reality whatsoever. If there is no material universe as everything exists only in the mind, then everything is supernatural and therefore nothing is empirical, everything is nothing more than a delusion of the mind, or to quote the poet, "life is but a dream".

That's just so typically sexist. Why can't the male officers wear burqas as part of their uniform?

Infinite is by definition non-quantifiable. One may attempt to reach or quantify the infinite, but never succeed. Eternal is the concept of infinite as applied to time. To claim that God is Eternal is to claim that God has always and will forever exist. One cannot logically claim the universe cannot be Eternal based on one's own limitations. That makes as much sense as saying that birds can't possibly fly by flapping their appendages because human can't fly by flapping their appendages. Omnipotence is infinity applied to power. Omniscience is infinity applied to knowledge. Omnipresence is infinity applied to the singleness of being in space and time. Omnipresence would enable omniscience assuming that presence facilitates awareness and thereby knowledge. One can imagine a being that is in fact omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Such a being would absolutely be a pantheistic concept of God. In fact every entity that exists would be a part and manifestation of such an entity in the same way that a being's cells are part of their body. The great difference being that we are not consciously aware of the working of every cell of our body, or even a single cell of our body. At most, we are conscious of various regions or organs of the body by virtue of nerve signals relaying information to our brains. If such a God exists, is it likely we would have any personal relationship with such a being. Individually, we would be of less relative individual significance or intelligence than the mitochondria which inhabit each cell of our own bodies are to us. We might be beneficiaries of such a being's existence, and it us, but how likely would that be the limit of such interaction. We have no way of guessing whether such a being would even have a conscious personality the way you and I do. Most people simply are incapable of grasping the scale of a single human being's time on this planet in relation to the history of the human race, much less so that of all animal life on the planet, and so much less so than all forms of life on the planet, and so much less so than the age of the planet which is only about 1/3 the age of the universe (all according to what science tell us... no one REALLY knows for sure).

If one accepts that the universe is eternal, one can then accept anything and everything because anything that can happen will have already happened and will again, it's simply a matter of time, because eventually, the probability of anything, and therefore everything happening is 1. There are an infinite number of earths that have existed throughout time. An infinite number of these had no life. An infinite number had only plant life. An infinite number were never hit by meteors causing the extinction of the dinosaurs. An infinite number of these had intelligent saurian life that developed technologically and explored and conquered the universe. An infinite number of these were defeated by or defeated the infinite number of insect techno-civilizations. etc. etc. If the Universe is eternal, then at some point in the past, and at some point in the future, there were an infinite number of times that Robot Hitler conquered the planet, and an infinite number of times where Robot Hitler died for the sins of all Robotkind. The only thing that has NEVER happened even once in all of eternity and will never happen again in all of eternity is the phenomena known as "The Kardashians". They are a trans-dimensional anomaly which we should all love, appreciate, and worship since they have never happened before and will never happen again.

More like free speech advocates who want the right to force children to watch the most vile and disgusting acts of depravity known to mankind in grade school, or anti drug prohibitionists who want to give LSD and heroine to kindergarteners.

Evil is subjective, or at the very least an inaccurate and ambiguous term for what may actually be meant (such as vindictive, malicious, taking delight in the misery and misfortune of others, etc.)

Is a daughter anegdote where Stefan suggests you're raising your children wrong by comparing your actions negatively relative to how he raises his daughter by way of a story?

Who do you think these "Sneak Rulers" are? Communists? One World/New World Order? Zionist Bankers? All of the above?

I agree with the previous posters... and would like to add that simply restraining the child may not be sufficient. It may also be beneficial to work with the child to identify an alternative action to hitting in expressing or conveying what is on their mind. I would also seek to understand specifically why the child is hitting. Are they simply attempting to assert control over their environment, or is there anger, frustration, or some other emotion involved? Understanding why their hitting and helping them to understand and communicate why will likely be very beneficial for both of you.

I would think it to be easier to find a somewhat left of center woman with an open mind easier to persuade to reason and more compatible for raising a non-religious family than attempting to deconvert a religious woman.

This is a conclusion drawn from studies I've read about how babies identify who is family and their in-group from personal experience, cues from primary care-givers, etc. I am not aware of any specific studies, only anecdotal experiences as well as my own observations of my extended family and their young children.

Baby's in-group preference is defined by their care-givers. If their caregivers are exclusively of a different race than themselves, they may exhibit a bias against someone who is of their race. If their caregivers are exclusively of their own race, they will exhibit a bias against someone who is not of their race. If their care-givers are of various different races, they will not have a preference for or against a particular race. To suggest that the babies cannot have been influenced either way is to ignore the mechanisms which define for the baby who is or is not a member of their "in-group".

Theodore Isaac Rubin is the psychiatrist credited with coining the term; however, self-erasure is simply one of many strategies employed by people in codependent relationships. Learning more about the difference between (unhealthy) codependent relationships in which one or both persons in the relationship have an unhealthy attachment to or dependency upon the other. Typically, this arises from the lack of a healthy emotional and psychological detachment from one's parents as one becomes an adult, usually the result of unresolved childhood trauma between parent and child. Part of the theory is that without resolving these issues in one way or another, one one may be prone to recreating the only type of relationship they know they can get the emotional and psychological validation they need, despite such a relationship being inherently dysfunctional. With work, one or both partners may be able to take the necessary steps to resolve such traumas, what some refer to as "healing, releasing or giving voice to the inner child" allowing the person to detach from the trauma and subsequently mature into a healthy, independent adult capable of a mutually beneficial and healthy "interdependent" relationship with others. Some books that have helped me along my journey include: "The Work" by Byron Katie and when it comes to a relationship with a potential intimate sexual partner "No More Mister Nice Guy" by Robert A Glover Just my two cents. Others will undoubtedly have different opinions and experiences. Take each, including my suggestions as possible ways, not "the only way" or even "the best way" (unless it happens to be for you).