Ableton Forum

edge100 wrote:But I have no doubt that there is a reason.

Yup, but not unlike one of your earlier posts above, you ain't gonna agree with my reason

shtreimel wrote:

edge100 wrote:But I have no doubt that there is a reason.

Yup, but not unlike one of your earlier posts above, you ain't gonna agree with my reason

Machinesworking wrote:Honestly you linked Freud, whom pretty much every psychologist I've ever met has problems with at some level. I've never cared for him much myself, the childhood sexual stuff is just off IMO.

Hardly anyone I know practices strict psychoanalysis anymore. Things evolve. Feminism, pscyho-pharm, post-modernism, etc., have altered and, IMHO, improved Freuds ideas. But to deny Freud's contributions to "talking therapy" as we know it, is to deny the entire enterprise. Hell, CBT was developed by Dr. Aaron Beck...a trained analyst/psychiatrist. And transference and countertransference are still used, and if not...to the detrement of the therapist i.e. shrinks who abuse their clients.

In general, most folks want a pill and 4-6 sessions of therapy to remove symptoms. Insurance companies love it as well. We're a fast food culture. Ain't it grand?

Machinesworking wrote:not, here in Seattle it's the exact opposite, mainly religious therapists and counselors who actually ask the patients to look towards religion for help etc.

Seriously, that's wonderful. Glad to hear it. My experience in Vancouver was the opposite. Lot's of new-agey, self-help therapy...most West Coast folks I worked with ran away from the East Coast to shed their traditional (read: oppressive) upbringing. BTW...Seattle's a stunning city.

Machinesworking wrote:Personally I don't get your constant attempts at painting atheists as less together etc. than the religious, like I've said before, I have never found religion, or lack of religion to make any real marked effect on a persons ethical behavior.

I've been very clear, when stating clinical observations, about two things:

1) They were formed while working with Jews in the Jewish community
2) They are in relation to secular (not atheist) vs. religious Jews

My prediction for this thread when everyone else has left:

Edge: "Yes."

shtreimel: "No."

Edge: "Yes."

shtreimel: "No."

Edge: "Yes."

shtreimel: "No."

... several weeks/months/years later ...

Edge: "Yes."

shtreimel: "No."

Edge: "Yes."

shtreimel: "No."

Edge: "No."

shtreimel: "...ohh, you nearly got me there. Yes."

NorthernMonkey wrote: Edge: "No."

shtreimel: "...ohh, you nearly got me there. Yes."

Actually, my mission is turn edge100 into:
http://www.fis.unipr.it/~alabiso/pagper ... assidi.jpg

shtreimel wrote:

NorthernMonkey wrote: Edge: "No."

shtreimel: "...ohh, you nearly got me there. Yes."

Actually, my mission is turn edge100 into:
http://www.fis.unipr.it/~alabiso/pagper ... assidi.jpg

Good luck.

forge wrote:

Seyser Koze wrote:[
I think the key point of your post above is "It just seems to". There is the rub. It seems to, but actually it probably doesn't.

to which you reply "probably" doesnt?

nay bother I'm not really set on trying to convince you, I guess the only reason I even mention it is because I am open to the possibility that there could be valid scientific reasons why iI have seen it be so accurate so many times - and I dont equate that with flaky hippy "beliefs" by a long stretch - in fact my agnosticism has leaned far more towards the cynical end of things for a while now

I'm not talking about "beliefs" I'm talking about my own observations and how often I've seen it strikingly accurate

I'm also saying I've hypothesized as to why that is and my view is far more of a scientific one

Sorry, but I doubt it.
.......... My parents are old hippies and so of course I've know my entire astrological chart since I could read etc. This is the rub, try this experiment that some friends of mine came up with..... next time someone asks you your sign say you are some other sign that has some major personality trait that sort of fits you. For example I've done this by saying I'm a taurus , I, in reality don't have a single planet in taurus, but because it's supposed to be a sign that gives people a tough, headstrong, loyal personality etc. all traits that could apply to me if you so chose, people are very happy, and say things like, "You know you really have a taurus personality".
the truth is people are all the things that the signs are supposed to be, nobody is so one dimensional as to be controlled entirely by intellect, anger, lust etc. as a major part of their personality, yet people ascribe those traits when they hear your sign, and if they don't really fit, they will ask for your rising, moon etc. and state that it must have more influence etc. In retrospect after trying this out for a while, it seemed obvious to me that astrology was far too open ended and subject to personal interpretation. Basically apply scientific theory to astrology and you get zero evidence of there being any correlation at all between date of birth and personality.
I was into astrology when I was young, but it's pretty obvious to me it's all BS now, though it sort of fun, it's really about as accurate as a fortune cookie. On that line though, it's still a way to get women into bed, and therefore useful.

shtreimel wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:not, here in Seattle it's the exact opposite, mainly religious therapists and counselors who actually ask the patients to look towards religion for help etc.

Seriously, that's wonderful. Glad to hear it. My experience in Vancouver was the opposite. Lot's of new-agey, self-help therapy...most West Coast folks I worked with ran away from the East Coast to shed their traditional (read: oppressive) upbringing. BTW...Seattle's a stunning city.

West coast all the way here, CA, and OR before WA. I would say SF, and seattle are right up there in the new world as far as just pretty as hell for cities.
New-agey stuff is religious though! Almost every new age text imprints a vague idea of a higher power, and asks for you to look into your spiritual side etc. Sure it might not be traditional religion, but it's there. Every therapist I've run into uses AA to some degree in their treatment of drugs and alcohol. AA is very heavily religious, read the 12 steps or traditions and try to interpret it as an atheist and you would have to agree. We have 2 meetings in all of Seattle under the AA umbrella that are not religious, but it's rare in any city to find that.
I've met plenty of counselors here who were christians etc.

I agree with you big time about the pill pushing in modern therapy. I made a promise to myself to not date any women on anti depressants anymore. Dated two and they both were far too out of it to be tolerable at all, and convinced it was the only way. It's really sad to see women between the ages of 18 and 40 become so heavily targeted by the pill companies.
Sure I can see the use when a person is hard core suicidal etc. but only for a short length of time, as a way of life? Sad!

edge100 wrote:

forge wrote:

edge100 wrote:[
The World Trade Center no longer exists for one reason: god; those planes were flown into those buildings in the name of god. ?

again - not god - politics

Nonsense. If politics (and repression) were the real reason that people commit these types of acts, Tibetan Buddhists would have destroyed Beijing a long time ago; they have been subject to some of the worst oppression known to man. Politics certainly has a role, but people don't fly planes into buildings without KNOWING that that is pecisely what god wants them to do.

forge wrote:in fact "we" dont even actually know who flew those planes or why

Not quite sure where this is going...

forge wrote:taking the word of "the man" or the government certainly doesnt qualify as fact

Ahh...it IS going where I thought it was. A topic for another thread; I think we might want to drop this to avoid derailing the discussion.

forge wrote:this is the same government that launched a ridiculous war based on complete lies, they have shown they are prepared to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents for greed, what makes you think 2500 in the WTC would matter to them? - probably a big mistake of Americans to assume they really value American lives that much more - they only really do at election time, and even then they can find ways around it

Again, I'm avoiding this topic, as I hope others will. It is not even tangential to the current discussion, interesting though it may be.

forge wrote: any of these supposed religious conflicts actually boil down to politics in the end

No. Politics may contribute, but again, if political repression were the key, there are MANY, MANY groups with a lot greater beefs with the US than a bunch of wealthy Saudis; a terrorist is statistically likely to be middle-class and well-educated, as all of the 9/11 hijackers were (your views on the whole thing notwithstanding). The misguided perception that all terrorists are just young, poverty-striken, idealistic drones (perpetrated through movies like 'Syriana') is patently false, in the main. People's perceptions about what god REALLY wants them to do affect their actions in far greater ways than politics ever could. There is no good reason to blow yourself up (and take possibly hundreds of non-believers and apostates with you in the process), except that god really wants you to do so, and has EXPRESSLY said so in the books he has either written or directly "inspired".

Noam Chomsky is the prime proponent of this line of thinking, but he misses the point entirely. One can still think current US policy is hopelessly out of touch and is creating contempt around the world, and still recognize the glaring truth that without god's 'inspiration', people don't fly planes into buildings with the express purpose of killing non-believers and apostates. The sooner we all admit this to ourselves, the sooner the 'terrorists' (whatever that is) lose this crutch. As soon as we call it as it truly is, the 'terrorists' lose the ability to blame this all on politics.

In a word, Bollox... I've said it a hundred times already, their religion does ALLOW them to act in violence, but it is definatly not their motivation. You're just being willfully obtuse, for what reason I dont know.
Meddle with and murder muslims for X amount of time, and they will defend themselves - and if they have faith they will be fearless. And most of them do.
Buddhists, thats a slightly disengenuous example imo, they have the same motivations but their religion does NOT ALLOW them to defend themselves in violence. They're all about that re-incarnation shtick, so it would seem pointless to kill someone to, in the grand scheme of things, prevent your brothers & sisters being killed. Thats why you dont find buddhists going crazy on 747s.

being spiritually allowed to go buckwild to defend yourself & your peers from external oppression and murder, is a whole different thing to blindly killing christians for the sake of killing christians. Thats a smokescreen. Its all completely down to politics, thats the motivation. Religion isnt preventing this war, that is for sure - but it is 100% not the cause. More the fool Britain & USA for fucking with people who arent afraid to die. And I for one wont tolerate this 'islam v christianity' HORSESHIT....thats tabloid material for truck drivers and waffle house waitress's to sap up.

shtreimel wrote:

b0unce wrote:he puts it down to religion, I put it down to politics. We cant just go around reclaiming land we say is promised to us by the bible, by the way - anyways, Israel exists today because of political persuasion and nothing else.

The founding of Israel is complex...suffice to say, religion (combination of relgious attitudes of christian brits in the early 20th century along w/ Jewish yearnings to "return to their homeland"), politics and post-Holocaust guilt played a role.

religion, my ass! post-holocaust guilt, my ass!
I posted a link to, and asked for comments on the balfour declaration of 1917 - for anyone who wanted to talk Israel. Its clear that they had agreed to establish the state of israel as early as 1917, when a jewish scientist had synthesized cordite for the british army - which was crucial to secure victory in the first world war. Not because jebadiah (sp?) came down from the mountain top, and spoke unto his people 'jeruselum next year' ...or some such religious drivel, but purely because of horse-trading political persuasion. How anyone can insist the british helped for purely altruistic, righteous religious reasons is waaaaay beyond me.

basically, those who cling dearly to the idea that the conflicts in the middle east are down Islam V Christianity, or religious reasons, have a hidden political agenda imo. They're being obtuse, willfull or not. Imo. Its the middle east V the west, its politics, its global hegemony and economics, arming dictators to the teeth one day and toppling them the next, for oil and political persuasion.

Machinesworking wrote:Almost every new age text imprints a vague idea of a higher power, and asks for you to look into your spiritual side etc. Sure it might not be traditional religion, but it's there.

Oh, I absolutely agree with. As well, my guilty pleasures include some new-age/self-help lit every one and again. But my colleagues DID NOT recognize that the thread b/w new-age and traditional religion is a fine one indeed.

Machinesworking wrote:Every therapist I've run into uses AA to some degree in their treatment of drugs and alcohol. AA is very heavily religious, read the 12 steps or traditions

I have an uncle who swears by AA. I've had clts who told me that "surrending to a higher power" saved their lives.

Machinesworking wrote:I agree with you big time about the pill pushing in modern therapy.

Almost everyone of my friends have tried an SSRI (the side effects, coupled with the lack of "miracle cure" they were seeking, led to a stoppage of psych meds).

And now, because of wait lists for psychiatrists, family docs are prescribing psychotropic drugs like candy. Check out this guy:
http://www.eliofrattaroli.com/main.asp
for a refeshing take on, IMHO, human suffering and psychiatry.

b0unce wrote: religion, my ass! post-holocaust guilt, my ass!

bOunce...the creation of Israel has to do with a complex set of variables. To point to "politics" or "oil" is akin to stating that "men like sex" as the sole reason why a husband cheats on his wife.

shtreimel wrote:

b0unce wrote: religion, my ass! post-holocaust guilt, my ass!

bOunce...the creation of Israel has to do with a complex set of variables. To point to "politics" or "oil" is akin to stating that "men like sex" as the sole reason why a husband cheats on his wife.

Shtreimel is quite right: very few things have a 'sole cause'.

The recent posts may have just caused this thread to spin out of control.

I've met a neighbour, (hopefully) given some food for thought, and provided some insights into the reality of evolutionary theory (in order of importance to me).

I'm getting a lot more work done today (writing a paper on what is, ironically, a VERY religiously-charged issue), so I'm going to bow out now.

I also need to spend more time actually LEARNING Live, now that I've decided to give up on Logic for good. I'm stuck on Live Lite 6 until I can come up with the $249 US for the upgrade, but I'm able to do a surprising amount with Reason, BFD, and Live Lite. Still, four scenes is a bitch!

edge100 wrote: I'm getting a lot more work done today

Wish I could say the same See ya on Monday.

laughable...

If I knew it was this easy to stop the merry-go-round...

shtreimel wrote:

b0unce wrote: religion, my ass! post-holocaust guilt, my ass!

bOunce...the creation of Israel has to do with a complex set of variables. To point to "politics" or "oil" is akin to stating that "men like sex" as the sole reason why a husband cheats on his wife.

complex ? not as complex as you make it out to be, hard to spin maybe,....you're stumped, and have nothing to say on the balfour declaration. This is a first?

Besides, my main point is that its down to almost everything but any genuine religious altruism on the part of britain, religion is the smoke screen abused by people with political agendas, and retards who sap up tabloid literature.