Now I know Freud was not the most stable person in the world (cocaine) but he was extremely intelligent and had some very good hypothesis. How many of you believe in the Freudian Slip and that when you accidentally say something, you actually sub-consciously meant to say it. Has anyone ever said something and then said "sorry, I didn't mean that" but when you thought about it, you meant it?
201562
As far as Freud is concerned, cocaine has nothing to do with him being stable or not (used it for a brief period of time). At his time cocaine was perscribed widely as a euphoric (they even used it in toothpaste and it is a well known fact that Coke was named after the drug as it was actually an ingredient at the time). Freud was fascinated by this 'new' drug and was studying its use in medicine(published in his papers 'on cocaine'). An acquaintance of his, Koller (an opthalmologist) conducted research after hearing Freud talk about cocaine's effects and presented the 'discovery' of the substance's use as a local anaesthetic as his own, thus gaining reputation.However, eventually the side effects and addictive nature of cocaine were discovered and Koller's reputation destroyed. \nAs for Freudian slips, i do believe the theory behind it. What you said has happened to me quite a bit. Even if the meaning behind the slip is not apparent (yes when you intended to say no but actually mean yes ect) and it's something seemingly irrelevant, it should correspond to something in your preconscious or unconscious. The actual word that you utter in a slip is not always the one directly related to the unconscious. Instead it has been 'filtered' by means of distortions due to the heavy affective load of the original word (which is what made it unconscious in the first place). An example would be a slip that is associated to a word or feeling that you find unacceptable. \nHowever, when something is said consciously, not 'accidentally', it is not considered a slip. So if you say something, even if the next second you regret saying it and take it back, it is not a slip of the tongue. If you say to someone "I hate you" it probably means you do even if you say that you didn't mean it, but this does not exclude the possibility that you love them as well. We always have opposing feelings for people if you think about it. It's just that one or the othe predominates.
640735
Good Question, which took me several minutes of valuable on-line time here at the Library to even consider a possible cause.\n\nPerhaps this overdramatized dualistic Labeling is PROOF of the lazy "lowest common denominator" of COMMON humans? This form of Aristotelian "thinking" harks back to the Ancient Greeks, so is not a new phenomenon, at all. Notice all the bloody WARS throughout recorded human history?\n\nAlfred Korzybsky, author of "SCIENCE & SANITY" and other General Semantics books, identifies this rigid, two-valued form of "Logic" as THE key factor in mental break-downs in thought; i.e. ( human misuse of Language leading TO actual INsanity!). He made his own observations  in psychiatric wards personally supervised in his work. \n\nDoctor Korzybsky (sp?) recommends re-training in General Semantics & MULTI-VALUED Logical analysis & description as a key help, if not a  REMEDY for such insanities! (Of course, those  NOT caused primarily by actual, Neurological Disease.)\n\nBinary or Boolean "Logic" is usefull in design of  NON-organic systems such as computer hardware, but dangerous if used to address REAL Life problems, or in Science and the Arts. The  simplest set of "Logical" values would be Trinary; i.e 3-valued!\n"Yes", "No", and "Maybe/Don'tknow4sure"!  \n\nThe simplistic use of "LIBERAL" versus "CONSERVATIVE" stereotyping you HEAR on the (AM) Talk Shows probably indicates frightened but LAZY Thinking of the commoner who  calls-into these programs. LIB/CON dualisms could also be a deliberate & manipulated RHETORICAL ploy of political pseudo-thinkers who wish to push their OWN (often stupid!) AGENDA! \n\nOoops! Sorry. Got carried away there.  Go READ Korzybsky!
177693
I don't know the context of Camerofj's original post, but when you equate "normal" with "essential" and "instinctive" may you be oversimplifying it?  In many primitive human societies (for instance as witnessed by Darwin in South America), getting your own way (be it by cheating, stealing, whatever) is normal.  In morally educated society we are taught right from wrong and we then choose whether to obey those rules or not.\n\nWhilst I agree with your posit that "CHEATING is a choice, as are stealing, murdering and lying, etc. And, poor choices at that." *for us*, I would also admit that in other societies (even micro-societies like ghettos or gangs or even clubs) normal might be defined very differently.
574611
I'm also writing a thesis,but in Theories of New Media, and I'm very much involved in Theories of Perception. Anyway, I use a number of books about psychoanalytical theory. In my opinion, Lacan and Deleuze opened some very interesting problems, how modern society pushes a persons' mind into schizophrenia/schizophrenic thinking and acting. The another interesting problem is, how computer-era influences person's mind. \nHope I helped :) Good luck!
166658
Yes, but it took the help of a Dr and many sessions to recover those memories.  \n\nUnderstanding the TRUE definition of "repressed" is needed, I believe.  For repression keeps that which can not be consciously confronted, out of consciousness. Repressed. \nIt is different than suppression, which is an intentional squashing of a thought. This is the phenomenon of "see no evil, say no evil" and refusing to think about something painful or anxiety producing. This is frequently the process which is invoked between the time of a stressful event or discussion (including therapy), and pouring that cocktail or popping that pill, or going online (hehe!), when disinhibition (which is freedom to act according to one’s inner drives or feelings, with less regard for restraints imposed by cultural norms) takes over and suppression can stop working so hard. With repression, however, one doesn't have choice or volition. What is repressed is repressed, and takes work to fully identify and address through psychoanalysis.
528644
Sounds neat, I read something about people being able to do things like that, but I cannot remember what it was about! LOL\n\nMaybe it was autistic children?  I can't remember.  If he seems otherwise normal, I would think it's just a neat thing he's enabled himself to do.
194887
Okay, I'm apparently alone on this one. That's fine, I'm accustomed to being in the minority. First of all, Tiger did not HAVE to apologize for his use of the term "spaz" in a televised interview after completing his final round of The Masters, he CHOSE to apologize. Big difference.\n\nWhile you and many others might not have felt offended in the least by this derogatory term, the fact is some people were indeed offended, even upset, about it. Last time I checked, that is their right. In many countries (excluding the US), "spaz" is an offensive term for people afflicted with spastic paralysis, which is a form of cerebral palsy. Admittedly, in the US, "spaz" is generally used as a slang term for someone considered clumsy or inept (this was clearly the usage Tiger intended). But guess what? Tiger Woods is very much on the WORLD stage and makes a great deal of money in a whole host of nations outside the US of A, so he rightly needs to consider this fact when making public comments. You can all cry foul over this but I feel sure he is very well compensated for this comparatively minor responsibility. Anyway, judging by his actions in the aftermath of this little media storm, he would appear to agree with me on this point.\n\nAs always seems to happen when such issues arise, I've noticed several comments above from people carrying on about how "oversensitive" other people are. It's been my experience in life that these self-same people who endlessly complain about others being OVERsensitive are themselves very callous and extremely INsensitive. Interesting and quite revealing, that.\n\nThe BBC did a radio programme on this very topic which I happened to catch on the World Service and it was highly enlightening to me. I hadn't realized that "spaz" (root word: spastic) was viewed as highly offensive to people with physical and mental disabilities in other countries. I like to think of myself as a sensitive person, particularly in terms of having empathy for those who suffer more in this world than I do. I think that's the point, really. It matters not whether or not you or I or anyone else without any disability found the term innocuous. It had no application to us (and I'm sorry, working with the handicapped, while certainly noble and commendable work, does not make you handicapped nor a spokesperson for the handicapped) but clearly those to whom such a term can and frequently is applied in a cruel and demeaning manner took great offense and were hurt by Tiger's regrettable remark.\n\nRather than focus on the issue of what is and isn't offensive to someone with such a disability, I for one am able to take something positive away from this little incident. I think Tiger should be commended for doing the right thing. I am in no doubt whatsoever that he intended no harm when he made the unfortunate comment. But he had enough personal integrity, tact, diplomacy  -- and yes, sensitivity -- to issue an apology to anyone who in fact was offended by his poor choice of words. That takes class and makes the rest of the argument superfluous. Good on ya, Tiger, for getting it right!\n\nEnd note: I should add that I know openurmind well enough by now to state with absolute certainty that she is a kind, thoughtful and sensitive person. As with Tiger, I am in no doubt whatever that she meant no offense in her comments accompanying this question. We may have to agree to disagree on this particular issue but it need not be done disagreeably and for my part it is certainly not. I just happen to believe that it is up to the person or persons who feel aggrieved by something said or done to determine whether or not it is offensive to them or not. It's not my call, just as it wasn't Tiger's call. So if I get it wrong, it isn't going to kill me to apologize, which I do without hesitation, just as Tiger did. It's called personal accountability. It
394097
i don't agree with freuds dream interp.\ni do like jungs, and most people think he is the better resource.
616223
This is a very interesting topic. It's like how you can hear yourself say something in your mind, but you don't actually hear sound. Or how you see a certain image when your eyes are open (hence, daydream). It's difficult to observe thoughts as they are happening, since the only way to actually formulate an opinion about what we are thinking is to analyze what we remember thinking. It's pretty amazing how our minds work, and what they control. We can't (more accurately, MOST of us can't) voluntarily control the rate of our heart beat, but we can voluntarily control our breathing. Yet, when we are asleep or not paying attention, our brain's nervous system takes over. It's so amazing...\n\nI can go on about this forever! : ) I actually have never heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle but I'll look into it. (After a pause...) My thoughts are telling me to finish typing. ^_^
190360
everyonce in a while I listen to rush just to prove to myself that I am giving both sides a fair shot at reaching me. As painful as it is, I would have to say that it is a very good feeling to know that I am correct (never "right").\n It also lets me know that there are many on this site who cannot form an independant thought if it was tied to their pee pee and wore lipstick. As for a civil war, I would have to say that anyone that listens to rush more than as a passing joke isn't bringing too much intelligence to the fight to begin with, so bring on the hate breeders.\n\n  and also, what could a known drug abuser bring to any argument. How do we know when he is snorting oxy contins and when he is just thinking about snorting oxy contins?
189902
yes, because i am falling into a deep state of unconsiousness, known as sleep. i think of important things, which i nearly instantly forget. but i remember they are important. falling asleep is nothing like the way it is presented on television or on the media. the natural way is simply shutting down all organs in your system for utter tranquility and comfort. when i am tired, i tend to do strange things. yesterday, i was exhausted after my 2nd class at school, so i left home without even considering the circumstances. being tiresome completely changes my personality. i wouldnt be the least bit surprised if the same occured to everyone else. i hope i answered your question correctly =).
237701
I refuse to admit anything to you...what did I do this time that I have to apologize....\n\n*********\n\nOn a serious tone...if I REALIZE that I was wrong, I do apologize, and hope that whoever was on the receiver end will accept my apologies and will be able to either forgive me or just move on...but I know that it will take me a long time before I am able to come to terms with the fact that to err is human...and I am not the perfect alien...:D
148008
Very strange, I was discussing a girl with a friend earlier tonight. She is extremely shy and it's difficult for me to understand what she's thinking half of the time. I used to be introverted and then had a major incident and came out extroverted. I asked a psychologist if it was possible to change in that fashion. She replied "Yes, people may change with time. However it usually happens because of some life changing event". Good luck.
664882
I think people are bound to say things which they don't really mean down deep inside esp when an arguement is going on.My thought is he did apologize and sometimes that's about all one can do.I have heard actions speak louder than words. As long as the person treats another with respect then I wouldn't hold one arguement over thier head forever.
37426
patzky99 wrote:\n\ni had read an earlier answer about how we use descriptions of animals' behavior to apply to humans. i'll check back and see if i can find it...\n\nwell of course i can't now. if i recall the gist of it was that we lump some of our 'worst' behaviors along with animals... so you get a 'wolf whistle', or a person or a movie is a 'real dog', or someone is 'crazy like a fox'. some positive behaviors can be ascribed too, 'proud as a peacock' or 'busy as a bee'. perhaps these phrases are just an extension of the days when we assigned human characteristics to the animal world.\n\nwho was that guy who was 'acting like a loon'?  thanks for the 2nd chance :)
616525
Has anyone ever used the word masturbation in your presence?\nGoogle it, you are ultimately responsible for your own sexuality, not your wife!
567553
Every single day....As long as I don't answer myself I guess I'm still pretty sane.  I talk to myself when I realize I have forgotten something, or put something away and can't remember where I put it.  I talk to myself when people just act stupid and you want to tell them off but keep it to yourself.  I talk to my self at times when I think I might have approached a situation differently or when I have to say something to someone, that I say the right thing.