State of mind for a viable future

[Exnihiloest]

Thank you! I said that I “not been further”, So I would not go further as a fine psychologist as you can be

Do I have the naivety to believe that humans can be improved?

When to want “to spare the goat and the cabbage”, Wasn't my post the biggest proof to the contrary?

It's not the first time that I've made remarks to Eclectron (everyone has their reasons. But as with anyone when things are going well (better) I say it too, like the other day when I liked a post by ABC when it recognized an error (without however overbidding, there is nothing personal).

Or do you have to talk about a specific point?

You're answering me, about the post I deleted, I guess? (I wanted to send it to you in PM).
It's mostly about you against ABC that I was thinking. As both skeptics, cooperation would be more productive.

[eclectron]

The “sacred” just has nothing to do with “this sort of certainty that everything can be analyzed, measured technocratically”It is not only a certainty, but above all a need for reassurance because of anxiety-inducing impulses determined by an uncertain future (the future itself generated by our current errors, I went no further ... ). This is not a pale copy of the current anthropotechnical (and sacrificial) observation of the world in order to recover it ideologically (the “sacred”) I would say => trash ... Even the “sacred” is better than a such sloppy recovery (deliberate to no).

Janic is right, I am not saying that especially for you, but after your wanderings on biodiversity, biotope and ecosystems, although you do not want to face it by minimizing gross errors (for once on a protection register of nature on which we tend to agree), do not forget that one day or another, given your angle of attack, you too will be confronted with your own contradictions again. Because it is sometimes a bit restricted.

This is not ill will on my part, nor a leak:
I do not understand what you mean, since you repeat word for word what the interviewer says at the beginning and which is precisely a criticism of the general functioning and I did not understand your nitpicking on biodiversity / ecosystem either, the two being very closely linked.
For information in a general way, I am not interested in the words, nor in the form of the expression but in the bottom of the message, and I do not understand what background you want to convey?
I just find you ambiguous and unclear.
When I answer you, you answer me ambiguously, either u does not answer me and I qualify it as "fake ass" mode.
Good unlike Tournesol which follows and which I ignore (sorry for the plant), I read you again and answer you again, betting on a mutual incomprehension.

PS: I was not expecting a particular exchange, I am posting "for info", for those who may be interested.

PPS: I have noted that you wanted to be the first to have spoken about the link between covid and biodiversity / destruction of ecosystems and that Monique Robin is zero
and I don't care if I'm the last one, I pass the info on when I have it, that's all.

[Obamot]

First you did not reply to my last two posts (to you) so say that it is not bad will and blah-blah-blah

And how do you want to get to the BOTTOM of the message, without understanding the words and their substantive core?

Start by answering and we'll talk about it again. There I do not know what to say: “faux-cul” whereas I could not be more direct I do not see.

The “sacred” just has nothing to do with “this sort of certainty that everything can be analyzed, measured technocratically"

More prejudices

[eclectron]

First you did not reply to my last two posts (to you) so say that it is not bad will and blah-blah-blah

And how do you want to get to the BOTTOM of the message, without understanding the words and their substantive core?

Start by answering and we'll talk about it again. There I do not know what to say: “faux-cul” whereas I could not be more direct I do not see.

There you are clear, although not having particularly addressed the message to me.
If in your posts you don't quote me, or you don't name me, I don't know if it's for me or not (that's also the "fake ass mode)"

So, explain the difference between declining biodiversity and abused ecosystems,
If there is a difference, what does this mean in practice for the flora and fauna?

[eclectron]

For patients and the curious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yo-POp5X74

It begins with the fallacy of the scarecrow: asserting that the company would claim that everything could be measured, all this to defend the intelligence and the logic which it puts to work, whereas this implementation, it is only to measure what can be quantified.
The accusation of scientism against the users of reason, to lessen it, is recurrent, but generally gratuitous and unfounded.
The handling of psychology as we see in this video comes from people who obviously have psychological problems of adjusting to the world themselves and no doubt think that this (pseudo?) Science could help them. It is clear that we are facing sermons addressed to others who have the same problems, and all these little people imagine that this would be the general case.
Big crap that hears us take bladders for lanterns. I don't really see any difference in these rantings of people who have never produced anything concrete, than in the speeches of Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology.

I can only sympathize ...
A few seconds of your life to get back a little into reality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yo-POp5X74&t=2186s

[Exnihiloest]

... A few seconds of your life to get back into reality a bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yo-POp5X74&t=2186s

"You do not produce the thought but the thought is produced for you, it possesses you", when we come to such a hollow, gratuitous statement, without any operational meaning, it means that we are seriously affected.
I fully understand that you are thinking by proxy. However, at least we should know to whom to entrust this responsibility. When it comes to wizards who have their own psycho problems to deal with, I don't think it's relevant. Rather see the real philosophers and scientists.

[eclectron]

... A few seconds of your life to get back into reality a bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yo-POp5X74&t=2186s

"You do not produce the thought but the thought is produced for you, it possesses you", when we come to such a hollow, gratuitous statement, without any operational meaning, it means that we are seriously affected.

The beings who are aware (at least in part) of not possessing thought, can only sympathize with those who are still in this madness, certainly generalized.
I wouldn't try to convince you, it's impossible, either we agree to see, or not.
either we see or no, it's very personal.
Your words are in a register like: What does banana taste like? and prove it to me!

Know that there is something other than egoic life, if you ever feel like it ...

[ABC2019]

... A few seconds of your life to get back into reality a bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yo-POp5X74&t=2186s

"You do not produce the thought but the thought is produced for you, it possesses you", when we come to such a hollow, gratuitous statement, without any operational meaning, it means that we are seriously affected.

Beings who are aware (at least in part) of not possessing thought

but they still have flashes of lucidity sometimes

[Obamot]

Well, you still have a job ... EGO question.

There you are clear, although not having particularly addressed the message to me.
If in your posts you don't quote me, or you don't name me, I don't know if it's for me or not (that's also the "fake ass mode)"

Maybe I don't name you? Where is that ?

And maybe I don't name you?

sante-pollution-prevention/coronavirus-covid-19-carte-de-l-epidemie-en-temps-reel-t16331-4060.html?hilit=biodiversit%C3%A9#p440896

And when you reply directly behind someone's message, since when do you have to name them?

Without deciding you are not even consistent with what you write, obviously when you look at your navel too much, look at Kiki where he is!

Okay, focus, if I tell you the enormities that you say about “biodiversity” you might be surprised yourself later. We sometimes have the impression that you make sentences to make sentences ... You can't just say that you post just to inform and that when you notice oxymorons and fallacies of the content, wash your hands of it just like an egocentric, or else you do “pedrodelavega” and you might be better than him in human terms.

I say that I say nothing, “I just post to inform ”

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

"You do not produce the thought but the thought is produced for you, it possesses you", when we come to such a hollow, gratuitous statement, without any operational meaning, it means that we are seriously affected.

Just before he says "in many cases", which implies that for him it is not an absolute rule. Then as a basis for reflection (I dare not say meditation), this sentence is worth stopping there. It is a mental exercise, a way of seeing (a point of view) which is not without foundation. Whereas we are the result of conditioning from birth (the notion of "good" or "bad" does not intervene in what I express), it goes without saying that we only master (very) away the thought process that comes to our conscious mind. Therefore, any thought that we can "contemplate", analyze, has a part of personal creation "of the moment", and other parts (to be defined) of the history which constituted us and which is the fruit of various teachings that we have never fully mastered, nor fully completed. No, this sentence is not silly at all, it is what I call "a world sentence" and others call "a catch-all sentence", I see it as a portal to non-ordinary thinking. The person who has my eyes is seriously affected, it is the one who will tend to believe that he is the master of his thoughts, his impulses, the influences of his past and that he is in control and in the knowledge of everything. this process. She is totally deluded when she pretends to believe it.