Posts by hollowpuma762

Jacob Cooper5 said:There are people out there with above-average intelligence who do nothing but cause massive damage to society.
Just look at some of the infamous criminals:
Edmund Kemper: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile
Charlene Gallego: IQ 160, involved in serial killings and keeping sex slaves alongside her husband
Jeffrey Dahmer: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile, cannibal
Ted Bundy IQ 135: serial rapist and brutal murderer

Now, these are just examples from the extreme end of the spectrum—but there are plenty of others who find success in high-society jobs while being absolutely devastating to everyone around them.

The whole thing about measuring intelligence relies on standardized testing, and honestly... that’s where the potential problem lies.
Those tests basically boil down to a mathematical principle of problem-solving. It's almost as if they were designed for a computer.
But even with computers, you have to feed them every single parameter involved in a situation to actually solve it. That’s impossible for humans because recognizing all the variables and their complex interactions during a process requires something much deeper than just computational efficiency.
What we *can* do is make the best possible use of the information available to us. I really think that should be the deciding factor when evaluating true intelligence.
The criminals I mentioned didn't grow up in some isolated jungle, cut off from information. Their intelligence should have been more than enough to connect their actions to the actual meaning and consequences within their own environment. The "meaning" here is that you're doing things that make people miserable—and the consequence is that unhappy people become prone to aggression and all sorts of socially destructive deviations that spread like a disease through your community. And let's be real... do you really think you'll be spared once that sickness starts spreading?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate intelligence through both micro and macro perspectives? It's hard for me to accept that someone can be "above average" in intelligence if that intellect doesn't include the basic math of multiplying misery—creating an unhappy society where your own risk of becoming a victim of violence increases.

What do you guys think?

Jacob Cooper5 said:This is some heavy, messy stuff. I honestly don't even know where to start... We can try to piece together some kind of coherent picture in our heads based on whatever info we have—even if most of it is probably wrong. It reminds me of how we were as kids, totally convinced the world worked one specific way, right up until we got hit with enough new information to create that massive gap between childhood innocence and the harsh reality of being an adult. New discoveries always end up shattering that simple, unquestionable reality we thought we had...
Understanding is really just a human trait at its core. It’s more about community and the things we claim to believe than it is about the actual failures of the people searching for some ultimate, absolute truth.

At the end of the day, all we can really do is act within the limits of what we're actually capable of. But now? I feel like I've gone and opened Pandora's box.

velvetbear372 said:I’ll illustrate the concept of reason using Star Trek—specifically through Spock and his adherence to Vulcan philosophy;

In one particular episode, Spock’s mother informs him that his father urgently needs his blood transfusion to survive—he'll die without it—and demands he leave immediately. Spock refuses. At that moment, a critical situation was unfolding on the ship, putting thousands of lives at risk. To him, it was the only logical choice: saving thousands outweighed the life of his own father. His mother was devastated—she was weeping, furious, and eventually slapped him, declaring she would never speak to him again (since she is human). Spock’s response? He simply asked what his father would think of him if he had chosen his own kin over thousands of others.

To make truly rational decisions, one must diminish—though I wouldn't say entirely eliminate—emotion, while simultaneously remaining moral.

After hearing that example, can you still argue that this is loosely tied to logic? Or that it's merely subjective?

graniteseal50 said:Do you ever find yourself idealizing strangers you pass on the street, at work, or even just grabbing coffee? I mean, specifically those people you think you could actually fall for if things were different. Maybe it's just me, I guess.

I guess I do this all the time. I see someone attractive and immediately start building this whole perfect version of them in my head—their looks, their personality, everything. It’s totally irrational since I haven't even talked to them yet. Then, by some weird twist of fate, we actually meet. But the more we talk, the faster that fantasy falls apart. Once the real person shows up, the spark just dies. I end up losing interest so fast I can't even care about the physical stuff that caught my eye in the first place.

I didn't want to dump this on Facebook, so I figured I'd post it here instead... just curious to see what psychology says about it? :P

swiftdrifter4 said:I wasn't sure if this belongs under spirituality or psychology—if it needs to be moved to psychology, feel free to relocate it.
It hit me recently just how narrow most people's perspectives are when they face life events. They tend to view everything through this incredibly tiny lens, immediately labeling situations as strictly "good" or "bad." Take infidelity, for example. Most people see being cheated on as an absolute disaster—a total negative. They spend their time cursing their partner and feeling like they wasted years of their life on someone who didn't value them. It becomes this constant, looping thought in their head. It’s usually only much later, after some time has passed, that their perspective actually widens. They might eventually see that betrayal as the opening they needed to find someone actually worth their time. Or maybe they realize it’s a chance to finally focus on themselves—picking up a new hobby or developing a skill they ignored for years. You could apply this to pretty much any situation, whether it seems major or minor (though "major" is always a matter of opinion). You never truly know where certain turns or decisions will lead you... yet people act like they "know" exactly what a situation means for them right from the start.
What do you all think is the reason for this?

rustytiger35 said:I feel like I’m standing at this massive crossroads in my life right now—just clearing out all the junk, from toxic relationships to old jobs... everything is being swept away.

So, I finally decided I’m going to start actually listening to my gut, but honestly?
I have absolutely no clue how you even do that!
Is that inner voice actually my soul's deepest desire—like, what I *truly* want—or is it that blunt, annoying voice telling me things I really don't want to hear, even if they are ultimately good for me?

Something wild happened today:
I've been hunting for a new job for ages.
A few weeks back, I got an offer that sounds incredible on paper. The benefits, the pay, the vibe—it’s all top-tier. Today, I was chatting about it with my circle of friends, and everyone was totally stoked for me, basically already picturing me sitting in that office. But me? I’m just feeling... nothing. Totally neutral. But because everyone was pushing me so hard toward it today, I started getting all jittery and anxious, and suddenly I'm second-guessing every single thing about the whole deal.
Then, on my way back from grabbing coffee, I hop in my car and blast some music... and right then, the radio starts blaring: "relax, dont do it..."

Now, I gotta know—is that a total sign from the universe, or just one of those random coincidences that I should probably just ignore?🤔😲

rustytiger35 said:I feel like I’m standing at this massive crossroads in my life right now—just clearing out all the junk, from toxic relationships to old jobs... everything is being swept away.

So, I finally decided I’m going to start actually listening to my gut, but honestly?
I have absolutely no clue how you even do that!
Is that inner voice actually my soul's deepest desire—like, what I *truly* want—or is it that blunt, annoying voice telling me things I really don't want to hear, even if they are ultimately good for me?

Something wild happened today:
I've been hunting for a new job for ages.
A few weeks back, I got an offer that sounds incredible on paper. The benefits, the pay, the vibe—it’s all top-tier. Today, I was chatting about it with my circle of friends, and everyone was totally stoked for me, basically already picturing me sitting in that office. But me? I’m just feeling... nothing. Totally neutral. But because everyone was pushing me so hard toward it today, I started getting all jittery and anxious, and suddenly I'm second-guessing every single thing about the whole deal.
Then, on my way back from grabbing coffee, I hop in my car and blast some music... and right then, the radio starts blaring: "relax, dont do it..."

Now, I gotta know—is that a total sign from the universe, or just one of those random coincidences that I should probably just ignore?🤔😲

Joshua Patel6 said:In the past, I always deferred to logic and reason, completely ignoring my intuition and my gut feelings. I did this because I was firmly convinced that making the "right" decision required nothing more than rigorous deliberation and acting responsibly toward myself and those around me.
I essentially sacrificed my own inner needs just to do what was considered "correct." The end result was a life defined by constant anxiety, living in a state of perpetual conflict between my actual needs and my desperate urge to behave properly. For me, much of that definition of "proper behavior" was simply ingrained through my upbringing and a very heavy dose of innate personal responsibility.

Now, I am attempting to change that pattern and listen to myself more deeply, so I have begun taking practical steps in that direction.

However, that voice of pure logic keeps trying to drag me back to my old ways.

I remember being in a similar position during a job interview once. My rational mind gave me a beautiful, logical explanation of why I should take the position—that I should try, that it was expected of me, and that I effectively had no other choice. Naturally, I listened to it, assuming it knew best, while once again suppressing the intuition that was screaming at me. But that intuition grew so loud and intense that the moment I stepped into that office, I knew, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it wasn't for me. To make matters worse, I absorbed such a toxic energy from that environment that I am still recovering from it even now. The consequence of ignoring that inner voice was insomnia, restlessness, and a profound sense of betrayal toward my own spirit.

If I could go back xyz years, I would listen to my intuition much more often; that is the wisdom I have gained through the sheer passage of time.

rustytiger35, it isn't easy to recognize that voice, let alone trust it. If you truly have a bad feeling about something, then you really ought to push your logic aside for a moment. But if you are merely feeling neutral, then give it a chance and try it out. You can always walk away and change your mind later.

rustytiger35 said:I was reading somewhere that true intuition is this steady, constant vibe... it doesn't just flip-flop on you.

Because if you're feeling totally awesome one day and then completely bummed out the next... that's definitely not intuition, that's just mood swings!

hiddenpuma75 said:And then there’s this guy, a walking masterclass in bad teaching.

He’s busy criticizing things without actually explaining what's wrong or offering a single correct solution.🙄

It reminds me of something > once said:

They won't enter the kingdom of heaven themselves, but they sure love lecturing everyone else who wants to! 🧐

(By the way, hiddenpuma75 claims the Gospels are just mythology.🙄
What an absurd take. To most people, myths are just boring old stories that don't mean much anymore. I mean, does anyone actually care what Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster had to say?

But look at the Gospels—they are incredibly engaging, universally applicable, and deeply profound lessons for life.🙂
Myths just don't carry that kind of weight or literary merit.
Why?

Because myths are products of the imagination—even if that imagination is deep and inspiring—whereas the events in the Gospels actually happened. It’s as simple as that.

darkbadger8 said:Or maybe the Great Spirit, Plankton, or whatever else comes to mind.
"To be or not to be" isn't a school of philosophy, it's just a logical fallacy...
Besides, the way you're building your arguments could probably be described as "ex Podex."😁

Actually, I'm using satire and irony here to imply the exact opposite of what I'm explicitly stating. You could call it benign sarcasm...
It isn't trolling; it's an attempt to defend materialism against dualism while trying to be witty...
Sigmund said it was a "good joke," some other user thinks it's a bad attempt at humor, but you're the only one who completely missed the point...
From what I noticed in a different thread, a sense of humor isn't exactly your strong suit...
Wittgenstein said that an entire body of philosophical work could consist of nothing but jokes. If someone were to claim that all of philosophy is a joke, that would be sarcasm...
I'd suggest looking up the Wiki definitions for sarcasm, irony, and satire...
To really get the hang of them, I'd recommend reading "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift...

darkbadger8 said:Or maybe the Great Spirit, Plankton, or whatever else comes to mind.
"To be or not to be" isn't a school of philosophy, it's just a logical fallacy...
Besides, the way you're building your arguments could probably be described as "ex Podex."😁

Actually, I'm using satire and irony here to imply the exact opposite of what I'm explicitly stating. You could call it benign sarcasm...
It isn't trolling; it's an attempt to defend materialism against dualism while trying to be witty...
Sigmund said it was a "good joke," some other user thinks it's a bad attempt at humor, but you're the only one who completely missed the point...
From what I noticed in a different thread, a sense of humor isn't exactly your strong suit...
Wittgenstein said that an entire body of philosophical work could consist of nothing but jokes. If someone were to claim that all of philosophy is a joke, that would be sarcasm...
I'd suggest looking up the Wiki definitions for sarcasm, irony, and satire...
To really get the hang of them, I'd recommend reading "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift...

James Lee77 said:Nah, reason is dianoia, while the intellect is nous, both in Aristotle and Plato. Reason is all about putting things together and breaking them down—you know, like linguistic or math analysis. But nous? That’s more like intuition. It’s almost like a direct perception; you either see it or you don't. There’s no building or deconstructing involved—Aristotle even uses the word "touch" to show how immediate it is. It’s still part of thinking, though. Maybe today we’d just call it an "insight." Like, basic logical principles don't come from analyzing; they're the prerequisite for any analysis. Once you see the truth of a logical principle, there's no going back. It’s kind of like Ramanujan, where he'd just get these math theorems handed to him by a goddess (that would be the nous part), but then he’d struggle to actually prove them (which would be the dianoia part).

Hegel is pretty harsh toward Schelling when it comes to rejecting that whole "intellectual intuition" thing, even if he still wants to keep that split between reason and intellect in a different way. I guess to him, the intellect is more like reason in motion—like a sort of meta-reason that sees how reason itself moves. 🤔

darkbadger8 said:Thanks, I'm doing my best...

But experience just shows us that simply swapping out a label doesn't actually change the substance... renaming something doesn't shift the underlying reality or how we truly grasp what's being discussed... it's all just surface level...

It isn't just about the experience itself... it goes deeper than that. It's about the very definition of the signifier...

In the spirit of political correctness, we could call Black people Africans, Romani people Romans, and homosexuals gays... or perhaps follow the spirit of Manitou...

Either we just go around hitting each other, if we’re going to keep misinterpreting one another like this...

But there’s really no substantial meaning behind it. Not just that... in situations like this, where the change is purely cosmetic rather than actually changing the core substance, those new labels eventually become obnoxious too. And then you have to swap them out for something else, and the whole cycle just repeats itself indefinitely...

It’s not that I don't see where you're coming from, but I think you missed the point... I was actually being quite specific about where I was heading with this...
Just one signifier... spirit of time... It just covers way too many different concepts...
You say... spirit of time... indicating...😁 The prime cause neural activity... 😁Then you get some joker chiming in with, "What, like Casper?" And honestly, I think they’re completely missing the point. They’re too busy focusing on the literal stuff you mentioned instead of actually grasping the underlying idea... which is what you were trying to convey. But Casper, along with a whole host of other figures, is just one way that the "spirit of time" manifests itself. It's part of a much larger framework, involving things like volatile invertebrates and all that...
I know deep down that nothing is actually going to change, even if you decide to call on Casper, or that guy from the lamp, or even the one hanging by the chain above your head and calling him Manitou... I'm certainly not suggesting we do any of that...
I’d suggest you try to pin down that prime cause neural activity and give it a different label... just so people don't come after you with that whole volatile invertebrate nonsense. Of course, if you decide to swap it out for Manitou instead, they'll probably just come down on you even harder...😁.
Manitou is really just a satirical take by that vulgar materialist... honestly, it serves the exact same purpose as the volatile invertebrate... 😁
Look, your example about calling homosexuals "gay" is actually a perfect illustration of how the relationship between a signifier and its meaning can shift entirely... Fifty years ago, if you called someone gay, it just meant they were cheerful...
If some straight guy walked up to you today and said, "I'm gay," just because he was in a great mood, people would probably just give him a weird look... like he was being awkward or something. And if he actually tried to double down—if he insisted that being "gay" was just his way of describing how cheerful he felt—he’d basically become the laughingstock of the whole office... everyone would just start making jokes at his expense...

If my memory serves me right, I think Steven Pinker touched on something like that in "The Blank Slate"...

And if he’s lying, then he didn't write it.😁

😁
You're joking, but honestly... that actually works in my favor.👍
The "spirit of time" isn't a "volatile invertebrate time," so it can't be "Manitou time" either...

I guess that clears things up now.

It seems to contribute to the illusion of progress—which is supposedly achieved through renaming—that the spirit is inherently deluded into believing that changing a name changes the essence or the core of something... something you see in all (to use a politically incorrect term) primitive cultures.

Is that inherent to Casper, or to the volatile invertebrate, or to Manitou?😁 You see how you unconsciously used the label in a completely different context. Unless you think it's inherent to the prime cause neural activity... If that's the case, we're beyond help...😁
Actually, with primitive cultures, you see exactly the opposite. Conservatism—refusing new terms and resisting change to outdated ones—is more of a hallmark of reactionary thought. But it was a masterful attempt on your part... hats off to you. Whoever can, let them understand...

hiddenpuma75 said:Not quite!

1. This is exactly why we all needed this dictionary in the first place.

2. Traditionalists have taught me that Intellect isn't just "the mind," and we shouldn't be so careless about blurring the lines like people do in everyday conversation.

They write things a certain way, so I’m going to make sure I clarify this for myself, for you, and for "all of us" alike.😁

3. Spiritus (Intellectus) is the Latin term; in Greek, it’s Pneuma, and in Jewish and Arabic traditions, it's Ruh.

4. The soul is Anima; in Greek, that's Psyche, and in Jewish and Arabic, it's Nefs.

5. Intellect and Spirit are essentially two sides of the same coin.

Now, I think there's a rather beautiful mathematical analogy for this:

There is no impenetrable barrier between the Intellect and the mind.
The relationship of the former to the latter is much like the relationship between the apex of a cone and its circular base. Metaphorically speaking, since the days of Descartes, most philosophers have focused exclusively on the base while completely ignoring the apex (the transcendental), which ultimately condemned them to superstition. That's the philosophical decline that began with Descartes and Kant and has continued right up to the present day—it's what we call the history of philosophy.
The only strange exception to this downward spiral was the Cambridge Platonists of the 17th century.

Virgilian words couldn't express it better:
''Descending into Avernus is easy, but remembering the steps to return is hard! !

*
(Avernus is a crater near Rome, symbolizing the underworld, or rather, decay.)

James Lee77 said:The biggest debate on Philosophy for like 15 years now:

Amanda Jackson5 said:To be honest, it’s not really. I meant to get back to you on this a while ago, but it slipped my mind. I suspect the confusion stems from some old-school scholasticism and the messy ways Aristotle's work was translated, especially regarding his distinction between passive and active intellect. If we look at the Latin term *intellectus*, which basically means the intellect, the Greek equivalent would be *nous pathetikos* versus *nous poietikos*. You could think of it as a rough parallel to the divide between empiricism and rationalism—or, if you prefer the heavy hitters, what Kant (and later Hegel) categorized as *Verstand* versus *Vernunft*.

darkbadger8 said:The issue with the word spirit is that it’s a total polysemy.
Take English, for example: ghost, spook, apparition, genie... they can all be translated through the lens of "spirit," so it’s no wonder there's so much confusion.
We used to have better, more distinct terms back in the day... well, things change...
When you look at the word in context, it gets even messier:
The Holy Spirit, acting in the spirit of an agreement, or that creature with a chain around its head, a spirit in a bottle... you could go on forever.

Then, of course, we have the philosophical concept of spirit as some kind of immaterial essence that doesn't physically exist but is still "there"—not just present, but somehow performing a magical function that enables brain activity, interacting with neurons to occasionally produce intelligence, though more often just stupidity.

I suspect this specific description of "spirit" is a frequent subject for philosophical posturing.

So, I humbly suggest that in the 😁spirit of 😁quality discussion, we consider attaching a different word to that definition.

Specifically, I propose replacing the word "spirit" in philosophical discourse with Manitou.
Let me explain.
First, imagine that next year Jeep releases two different models of the Grand Cherokee.
They are identical in every way, except for one thing:
One has the title "Grand Cherokee Manitou" on the door, while the other says "Grand Cherokee Spirit."
Which one would you buy?
The answer is neither, because you can't afford them anyway.

Manitou is defined as follows: A spiritual and fundamental life force. It is omnipresent and manifests in everything: living beings, inanimate objects, the environment, events, and so on.

Furthermore, Manitou has two aspects that aren't mutually exclusive:
Aashaa Manitou—the Good Manitou, and Otshee Manitou—the Evil Manitou.
When a child pets a bunny, that's Aashaa Manitou acting on their neurons.
When a kid breaks a window with a baseball bat, the kid isn't necessarily evil; rather, Otshee Manitou is manifesting through their brain activity.

In certain traditions of the Algonquin Native Americans, Aashaa and Otshee are unified under the Great Spirit, who is the supreme being—God.
I suggest we keep calling Him God, though, because according to His own explicit Old Testament declarations, He is "jealous," and it's well-documented that He can be quite difficult when He's angry.
CLICK

darkbadger8 said:The issue with the word spirit is that it’s a total polysemy.
Take English, for example: ghost, spook, apparition, genie... they can all be translated through the lens of "spirit," so it’s no wonder there's so much confusion.
We used to have better, more distinct terms back in the day... well, things change...
When you look at the word in context, it gets even messier:
The Holy Spirit, acting in the spirit of an agreement, or that creature with a chain around its head, a spirit in a bottle... you could go on forever.

Then, of course, we have the philosophical concept of spirit as some kind of immaterial essence that doesn't physically exist but is still "there"—not just present, but somehow performing a magical function that enables brain activity, interacting with neurons to occasionally produce intelligence, though more often just stupidity.

I suspect this specific description of "spirit" is a frequent subject for philosophical posturing.

So, I humbly suggest that in the 😁spirit of 😁quality discussion, we consider attaching a different word to that definition.

Specifically, I propose replacing the word "spirit" in philosophical discourse with Manitou.
Let me explain.
First, imagine that next year Jeep releases two different models of the Grand Cherokee.
They are identical in every way, except for one thing:
One has the title "Grand Cherokee Manitou" on the door, while the other says "Grand Cherokee Spirit."
Which one would you buy?
The answer is neither, because you can't afford them anyway.

Manitou is defined as follows: A spiritual and fundamental life force. It is omnipresent and manifests in everything: living beings, inanimate objects, the environment, events, and so on.

Furthermore, Manitou has two aspects that aren't mutually exclusive:
Aashaa Manitou—the Good Manitou, and Otshee Manitou—the Evil Manitou.
When a child pets a bunny, that's Aashaa Manitou acting on their neurons.
When a kid breaks a window with a baseball bat, the kid isn't necessarily evil; rather, Otshee Manitou is manifesting through their brain activity.

In certain traditions of the Algonquin Native Americans, Aashaa and Otshee are unified under the Great Spirit, who is the supreme being—God.
I suggest we keep calling Him God, though, because according to His own explicit Old Testament declarations, He is "jealous," and it's well-documented that He can be quite difficult when He's angry.
CLICK

Robert Ruiz2 said:I’ve been drawn to meditation for over a decade now.
But honestly, I’m just too restless and fidgety to actually stick with it or see any results.

No matter how many times I try, or how many minutes I spend sitting there attempting to "meditate," it never sticks.

I’ve tried focusing my breathing. I’ve tried using background music. I’ve tried heading out into nature or even just doing it in the shower.
Zero luck.

The first few minutes go fine, and then the chaos starts:
- this position is super uncomfortable
- did the kids finish their dinner?
- what am I making for dinner tomorrow?
- is the water getting cold?
- is there something Flying in the room?
- I really should have said no (to that thing that happened 15 years ago)
- how am I ever going to lose weight
- I really need to shave my legs
And just like that, I give up. 🕺

Do you guys Practice meditation?
Any tips on how to finally shut my brain up???? 🙂
Thanks.

Robert Ruiz2 said:I’ve been drawn to meditation for over a decade now.
But honestly, I’m just too restless and fidgety to actually stick with it or see any results.

No matter how many times I try, or how many minutes I spend sitting there attempting to "meditate," it never sticks.

I’ve tried focusing my breathing. I’ve tried using background music. I’ve tried heading out into nature or even just doing it in the shower.
Zero luck.

The first few minutes go fine, and then the chaos starts:
- this position is super uncomfortable
- did the kids finish their dinner?
- what am I making for dinner tomorrow?
- is the water getting cold?
- is there something Flying in the room?
- I really should have said no (to that thing that happened 15 years ago)
- how am I ever going to lose weight
- I really need to shave my legs
And just like that, I give up. 🕺

Do you guys Practice meditation?
Any tips on how to finally shut my brain up???? 🙂
Thanks.

swiftdrifter4 said:It doesn't really matter if it's a placebo or not; the main thing is that it works.

bluemason3 said:It matters because if the effect is built directly into the language itself, then it’s universal—it doesn't care what you believe. But if it’s just a placebo, then everything becomes much more subjective and individual.

Lawrence White10 said:That "mostly..." qualifier isn't a closed case—it’s a maybe/maybe not situation. It’s all just "who knows," really. Just as other dimensions, planets, galaxies, or aliens are possible, so too are entities, ghosts, orbs, and clusters of unresolved energy...

As for surrendering to a distorted "entity"—I agree that it's just surrendering to oneself, given that you're the one who conjured it in the first place.

Well, being literal is practical. Sometimes I prefer being literal.

Exactly. 😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:The thing is, you can't even begin to grasp those principles or mechanisms unless you actually understand the symbols involved. And honestly, anyone who tries to label everything as "psychosis" just because they're confused would probably end up experiencing it anyway. At the end of the day, it all boils down to a broader interpretation of psychology.

Joseph Bailey41 said:The thing is, you can't even begin to grasp those principles or mechanisms unless you actually understand the symbols involved. And honestly, anyone who tries to label everything as "psychosis" just because they're confused would probably end up experiencing it anyway. At the end of the day, it all boils down to a broader interpretation of psychology.

Joseph Bailey41 said:The thing is, you can't even begin to grasp those principles or mechanisms unless you actually understand the symbols involved. And honestly, anyone who tries to label everything as "psychosis" just because they're confused would probably end up experiencing it anyway. At the end of the day, it all boils down to a broader interpretation of psychology.