Page all of 2 12>
Topic Options
#43776 - 10/24/10 05:04 AM The old Nature vs. Nurture debate
Tranceparent Sky Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/02/09
Posts: 31
It's old, it's redundant, and a few of you may have rolled your eyes, but I seriously want to know what your views are.

Why are we the way we are?

Is your boss an asshole because his father drank too much, or was he simply born that way? From my understanding, the minute we are born and emerge from the womb, we begin taking in information and developing thought processes and thinking patterns. But what about personality? Are we born with one that lies dormant until we're able to express it, or can it be molded?

Psych 101 flashbacks ensue.
_________________________
~Satanism~
The cream cheese to my atheistic bagel.

Top
#43780 - 10/24/10 08:17 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Tranceparent Sky]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Tranceparent Sky

Why are we the way we are?

Is your boss an asshole because his father drank too much, or was he simply born that way?


Are you asking about yourself, or others? If the latter (which it seems from your wording), then don't forget that you may only be getting a portion of the whole picture of someone else.

Maybe your boss is an asshole because he's responsible for output and you guys have been slacking off, and he's already been planning for 2011 and knows the budget is going to be cut, and he has to lay off 20% just in time for Christmas.

Try seeing things from another person's viewpoint - it's a lot more instructive than sterile psych models.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#43791 - 10/24/10 11:42 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Autodidact]
Tranceparent Sky Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/02/09
Posts: 31
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
 Originally Posted By: Tranceparent Sky

Why are we the way we are?

Is your boss an asshole because his father drank too much, or was he simply born that way?


Are you asking about yourself, or others? If the latter (which it seems from your wording), then don't forget that you may only be getting a portion of the whole picture of someone else.

Maybe your boss is an asshole because he's responsible for output and you guys have been slacking off, and he's already been planning for 2011 and knows the budget is going to be cut, and he has to lay off 20% just in time for Christmas.

Try seeing things from another person's viewpoint - it's a lot more instructive than sterile psych models.


I think you're tying too hard, I was being facetious. This has nothing to do with my boss. Thanks for the insight though.

I simply want to discuss whether or not people have individual personalities that are "ingrained" in their brain, or if they are shaped by their environment. Obviously, environment has a major part to some extent, but are there some things about people that will never change because that's the way they were born?
_________________________
~Satanism~
The cream cheese to my atheistic bagel.

Top
#43800 - 10/25/10 03:42 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Tranceparent Sky]
Wolflust Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/20/09
Posts: 33
This has been actually been the topic for a huge debate among academics in my country for the last few months, when some well-known and respected people stood up and said that a lot sociology is based on false premises, because they doesn`t take biology into account.

I agree with this. Though, having studied sociology myself, I think its beyond doubt that the environment, culture, socialization, and even media, plays a big role in how you "become" what you are.

This should not be reckoned as an excuse for mediocrity or irresponsible behavior though. Maybe this further proofs Dr. LaVey`s point that Satanists are born, and not made?
_________________________
It is not my name or my number, its how I use it and what I do.

Top
#43801 - 10/25/10 04:07 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Wolflust]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
I'll chip in, mostly because I tend to disagree with everyone and his uncle when it comes to just about everything these days.

All these questions are all well and good; interesting in their own way and certainly sparking an interest for the headway being made into the realms of genetics, neurology, psychology, evolution, metaphysics and philosophy as a result of all the funding heading their way.

It all boils down to the question "Do we have any kind of free will?" OK, so I'm over-simplifying and being tabloid and fashionably blase about the whole thing. Doesn't change the essential truth of my statement.

I'll summarize my earlier viewpoint here: by today's tools there's simply no way of knowing whether free will exists or not. It's just not feasible. And you know, I'm fine with that. Peaches and cream, really.

Because there are more important traits to the human psyche than the freedom of your will. Like moral perspectivism. Look it up. Like mental resilience. Vital existence. Apotheosis through a life lived to the utmost.

If people want to rape each other to death while shooting heroin into their eyeballs, that is easily dismissed with a simple "I'm an addict personality; it's not my fault!" Fine. Get the hell away from me. I can tolerate a whole lot from people around me, but not the total and absolute abdication of responsibility due to the genetic predisposition in their genes toward a certain addiction or weakness.

You can be a slave to your genes all you want, but in the end it doesn't matter. Some people will always aspire to greater things and move beyond such simple excuses for their compound trainwreck of a life. I have met many of the latter people in here, and they are easily a million times more worthwhile and stimulating than the people who reduce their own lives to a series of G's, A's, T's and C's.

If you take responsibility, you have earned it by dint of holding it. It's the ultimate 'Fuck You And The Horse You Rode In On' to the proponents of genetic predestination.

My suggestion to everyone who ponders this question tonight:

You are very clever to ponder such conundrums. It's good that you care. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life responsibly. You can still act like a child if you want, fuck eighteen prostitutes a night if that's your bag, or even flush your entire life down the crapper. Just own it. That's all I ask.

You'll be more interesting and have a richer life than the other mouthbreathers.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#43816 - 10/26/10 02:18 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
Reminds me of Bukowski...

He was a drunk, and he knew it. He really didn't make any excuses for it. He was what he was, if you didn't like it, I'm sure he wouldn't care if you let yourself out. He was also ugly as hell, and he knew it... but ended up having written some interesting books, and some pretty awful poetry, got famous, has two movies out now, and got to have lots of sex with crazy women, maybe that was enough for him?

I know that wasn't the point of this, so I'll shut up now.

(I was referring to "ownership of one's actions)
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#43826 - 10/26/10 09:11 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Wolflust Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/20/09
Posts: 33
I enjoyed your post, sums things up quite nicely. There will always be differences among people of many varied reasons, but its ultimately better to hone ones own talents, than to ponder others faults. Everyone can certainly fuck things up for themselves, but what matters most is what their next move is. If you fuck up, you'd better own up.
_________________________
It is not my name or my number, its how I use it and what I do.

Top
#44012 - 11/05/10 10:29 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Wolflust]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Wolflust
This has been actually been the topic for a huge debate among academics in my country for the last few months, when some well-known and respected people stood up and said that a lot sociology is based on false premises, because they doesn`t take biology into account.

I agree with this. Though, having studied sociology myself, I think its beyond doubt that the environment, culture, socialization, and even media, plays a big role in how you "become" what you are.

This should not be reckoned as an excuse for mediocrity or irresponsible behavior though. Maybe this further proofs Dr. LaVey`s point that Satanists are born, and not made?



While there are definitely far too many sociologists preaching tabula rasa, the sociobiologist alternative is hardly any better...genetically more or less identical to hunter-gatherers we may be, but if we fail to take into account how our 'nature' is mediated by the social, we're bound to end up in a silly reductionism that posits genetic perpetuation as the rationale behind everything from malls to international trade.

I don't think that inverting the commonly held, uncritical position of sociologists is necessary for an ethics of responsibility per se either; the fact that the universe is indifferent and deterministic shouldn't stop us from weighing the potentially positive net effects of executing paedophiles and the like. Similarly, since no one behaves under the M.O. of not having any free will, it is certainly strange that we'd excuse behavior by taking this very detour. Don't fall into the trap of debating on your opponent's theoretical terrain; borrowing their concepts, studies, etc. Ethics are not bound pure and simple to the false antinomy of nature/nurture, free will/determinism.

Top
#44027 - 11/06/10 09:41 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: ballbreaker]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
You're requesting the Satanic community to respond to an anthropocentric question which borders on the right-hand path religions such as christianity to which the majority tries to keep christianity on the other side of the spectrum. With the initial inquiry, a heretical christian (non-Satanist) would answer in a coached, premeditated unintentional christian ways (orthodoxy) such as: the self-consciousness of humankind drives a person to conquer everything in their surroundings. This idea is broaching topics like competing with others in the work place to be the alpha and omega of an unkept group that answers to a higher power (the boss). Another perspective on the rejoinders is that a monotheistic Being must have created the provisionally bifrucating "areas" by beginning with biblical, soteriological creation and ending with judgement or eschaton as in the bible. This leaves the thought of a primordial undifferentiated other-power behind the scenes. Because science has failed in describing the origins of humankinds' personality or characteristics, something must have started it to help spurn humans towards rolling evolution. It's only logical. With a beginning, there is an end. Nature or nurture? Thirdly, a person glossing over the posts can think outside-the-box taking the thought a couple of steps further within a process of their discriminating intellect thinking giantly to themselves about other topics the question interpenetrates like ethical, prophetic and theistic to which all are tied by interdependency. This anthropocentrism is axiological with discussing even further on virtues and spirituality, for example. This is atypical of Satanic logico-philosophical thought. A true Satanist would unleash a phalanx with raging fury and strength of Mind against exactly this kind of mentation.

Switching gears.

Take a dehomocentric, cosmological view on the essence of the initial inquiry embracing core Satanic beliefs that is a diaspora to western, judeo-christian beliefs. View life through naturalistic, mystical and non-theistic (Panentheistic) modes of thought. There is a whole cadre of various types of thinking, one just has to pick up a book to launch them as a missle to their proposed destination, and read it.

I'll stop before lecturing from a lectern on the way to think otherwise. ;\) Ciao.
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#44036 - 11/07/10 06:20 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: paolo sette]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
Was this actually intended to be directed at me, or to the OP?

If the former, I suspect you've fundamentally misunderstood me, though the red ink and some of your babble like 'dehomocentric' and arbitrary capitalization of 'Mind' has me thinking 'bullshit'.

Lack of generosity aside, could you humour a naive idiot by spelling out what you mean to say a little more clearly, maybe with some punctuation and a little less obscurantism? I don't want to be totally dismissive...but the600club does get its share of morons (I'm one of them).

Top
#44092 - 11/14/10 06:22 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: ballbreaker]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Quote:
Lack of generosity aside, could you humour a naive idiot by spelling out what you mean to say a little more clearly, maybe with some punctuation and a little less obscurantism? I don't want to be totally dismissive...but the600club does get its share of morons (I'm one of them).


I do not qualify to be in the categories such as a "moron" or idot or mentally retarded. I am in an immutable class all by myself, for myself and of myself. When I type class, automatically I am allowing myself to be described in the English language; hence, better words to elucidate more specifically my self-nature concretely was-is-will be a Noumenal, Monistic Nihilist. Erudition is without a question needed to decipher meaning.

In the West, a member of one of many countries is predisposed to think in Positivistic terms. That is teleological (aim seeking). What is Real is everything that falls under the human senses. Moreover, the West is interested only in the object of knowledge. At the same time, the West maintains that the senses are imperfect, and I have to conclude that an imperfect instrument cannot comprehend Ultimate Reality. How can we say that what we see is "truly" Real, if te instrument with which we see is inadequate, limited and imperfect?

The Western individual interprets Reality on the basis of image-forms which the Mind creates from psycho-physical senses. The customary way to reflect on our personal Universe is by image representaions other than Reality itself. The world around humankind is one which is related to mental interpretation. Once the focus and dimension change, the world acquires an altered view which the untrained Mind wll accept as Reality. This is exactly what is meant by having a "two dimensional" view of things. An ambitious, unimpaired Mind can operate through the senses to differ from the aforementioned way that is three dimensional or giantly which is pertaining to the fourth dimension. As far as I can tell, humans have uncovered these modes of thought. I am not one to restrain an individual, aim seeking Mind, but rather one who encourages Truth.

Through informed aspirations and persevering determinations, the intellect can discover literally what is directly in front of you. If you attempt to grab It, It will allude you. As you search for It by looking aggressively to the right, It will move even faster to the left leaving more distance between you and It. It equals Truth. The information offers ways in which one extrapolates meaning and definitions. Two prerequisites are a supra-counscious cognizance and correct action. The former is left up in large part to the individual, but the latter is through Trust of other fellow people. I'm not telling you to have faith, as that word does not exisit in my dictum; rather, faithlessness is a word to help describe the three labeling words I used in purple to define myself. Once you have learned to Trust people who lead an aspiring individual to correct action(s), an unfoldment of discernment intuitively grasps a seeker on the true nature of Reality.

There are religions of grace such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Secondly, there are religions of awakening such as Buddhism and Advaitism. Finally, there are religions of diabolism such as Satanism and Setianism. Participants in the community offer ways to utilize cogently our Minds to bring about a clearer and sharper perspective on Satanism which is broad and cumbersome.

Ciao
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#44093 - 11/15/10 03:36 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: paolo sette]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
How can we say that what we see is "truly" Real, if te instrument with which we see is inadequate, limited and imperfect?

Even an inadequate and imperfect instrument is capable of detecting a vague piece of reality. Unless you really want to discuss the fist with metal knuckles approaching your teeth with quite a high speed is not real...

Now, may I ask you to quit being hollistic? You may have a better vocabulary then most of the people here, but it isn't really going to add a difference if you can't focus on the subject and are simply adding nothing to the subject itself. (Except for brainless banter).
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44096 - 11/15/10 11:06 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Tranceparent Sky]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Tranceparent Sky

Why are we the way we are?


I can't really say. I think every individual is living a collection of choices, good and bad, and there's no pat answer to describe how any individual got from point A to point B.

I'd say that your understanding is as reasonable as any other, perhaps more so. I think personality is an individual thing (hard wired) and it's responsible for prioritizing the information taken in as well as for decisions made using said information.

An interesting study for this question is in the life of Charles Manson. His situation is unique in that he was a product of differing institutions since the age of nine. At nine, of course, Manson had committed no crime greater than being the product of the stupid people who chose to institutionalize him rather than to care for him. Having been taught nothing but to respond to bells and to wait until he was told what to do, I believe he was destined to failure upon release by complying with the only set of rules that he knew, and then resorting to petty theft when doing so failed to produce any results.

Further study of Manson will reveal many truths, many of which will be surprising to people who have not traversed this particular path. It's too long to go into here and would be too far afield of the subject of the thread.

At any rate, using Manson as my model, it is my hypothesis that one's surroundings absolutely do influence the person that one becomes. It's the setting of a belief system and then the underlying core of a person changing to align with that belief system.

Those who live outside the box (Satanists, for example) can readily see the systemic influences that others subject themselves to, as part of the core personality of a Satanist is to reject being boxed in by anything (doubt is key).

So, yes, I think that the common individual (cute misnomer huh?) is susceptible to being a product of their environment. I like Joseph Campbell's hierarchy starting with 'what will the neighbors think?' and moving on up the chain of people commonly perceived as above oneself in the social hierarchy.

I also think there are folks (like many here) who see the game for what is and begin to ascend.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#44122 - 11/16/10 06:22 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Tranceparent Sky]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Tranceparent Sky
It's old, it's redundant, and a few of you may have rolled your eyes, but I seriously want to know what your views are.

Why are we the way we are?




I have to revert to my sig for this one love. Maybe when we are younger, we can be molded quite easier than when we grow older. However, as we mature and gain more control over our surroundings and our personalities, we get to pick and CHOOSE what we are and what we are going to take from what we have experienced.

Now, there are those that would argue that a mother that beat her children is just repeating some kind of action that they learned when they were younger whether they were abused, weren't taught any better, or just simply watched too many movies that they should have not been exposed to.

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for oneself? You are who you are because, quite simply put, you have made it as such. I have a couple friends that "beat the odds" when it came to abuse whether physical or mental. I think it takes someone with the emotional will power to overcome these things that manifest outside of themselves into more productive activities. You cannot blame anyone but yourself.

And before anyone brings up those with mental disabilities, these people that have special needs should be tended to as it is fit.

I truly believe in the saying that your life is 99% controlled by you and yourself alone. Therefore stating, "my life sucks" .. you are actually saying "my life sucks because I suck/haven't done anything to change it from the drainage hole that it is" in my opinion.

There are many elements in which we use to create ourselves and identify ourselves. I believe that there comes a point in time where we step up and tell everyone "I am because I choose". We are what we are, who we are, because we have chosen to be who and what we are. Those who disagree and try to push their negativity on events in their lives or their unhappiness on other people are just lying to themselves.

The only person at the end of the day that I have to deal with is me. So why in the world why I wonder why I am who I am when I already know it's who I have chosen to be, who I will choose to become..

Choice my dear, is indeed what makes us who we are. Not people, not our surroundings because we can change those things.. we can change who we are around, what we are around ect ect.

The individual chooses for itself.. only the ones playing to the crowd allows anything else to affect them otherwise.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#44284 - 11/20/10 05:50 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
I truly believe in the saying that your life is 99% controlled by you and yourself alone. Therefore stating, "my life sucks" .. you are actually saying "my life sucks because I suck/haven't done anything to change it from the drainage hole that it is" in my opinion.

You life being controlled by yourself is very loosely true. You have the idea of being in control of your own life, in reality you tend to be persuaded to fit into different social cultures, to be compared to different kinds of people, your actions being labeled etc..
You have the choice what you are going to do next, but try to notice that your own decisions and that the idea of your life being only controlled by yourself is also an illusion. Every action you make is a result from persuation under social pressure from friends, relatives, family,.. and is sub-consciously not really your own choice but an advice and idea which seemed good enough in your opinion to be followed for the gratification of your inner needs/emotions.

And if a person thinks his life sucks then it simply is a quite unlucky guy/girl or an attentionwhore who didn't get into REAL trouble yet.

 Quote:
The only person at the end of the day that I have to deal with is me. So why in the world why I wonder why I am who I am when I already know it's who I have chosen to be, who I will choose to become..

It is considered to be a Satanic virtue to know oneself and to see yourself as the highest good within the (your own) universe.
But there is always that sense of realism and honesty to oneself that is lacking greatly.
Might I ask, in all honesty, what your current goal at the moment is?

Individualism in all of its facets if very nice to put in bold, underline it and shout out at politicals speeches. And yes, Satanism pushes forth and stimulates individualistic thinking but many tend to forget what that word really means (and not the dictionary definition) and underestimates how deep-rooted anticipating and communicating with others really is. Even to the extend that true individualistic thinking is quite utopic.

You always will have choices, keep in mind these choices are not because you have chosen to choose between them. They have been served to you on a silver plate by the different envirronments you come across and are being tried to push in (taking various experiences into account to make up the mind).


Edited by Dimitri (11/20/10 05:53 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44306 - 11/21/10 04:42 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Dimitri]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
I am still figuring out how bees are able to build hives, and birds their nests, without having been taught this. When humans build houses they have to learn how to do it.

Nature - my brain cells are constructed in such a way that I am able to pass the tests to join the high intelligence organisation MENSA.

Nurture - babies and small children kept pushing me out of the way for attention during my young life. Now I hate children, and will never have any.

Anamnesis - ancient Greek idea that we have souls, that our present lives have been influenced by knowledge and experiences from previous lives. Examples exist of children who remember a past life, and whose experiences of a past life has a direct impact on their present life, for instance the case of James Leininger.
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#44310 - 11/21/10 06:27 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: mabon2010]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
I am still figuring out how bees are able to build hives, and birds their nests, without having been taught this. When humans build houses they have to learn how to do it.

Ever thought about the fact almost any living animal can copy behavior? It's easy to imagine a bird being born and for the time it stays in the mothers nest watching how the nest has been built. It aplies to almost all animals and insects.

 Quote:
Nature - my brain cells are constructed in such a way that I am able to pass the tests to join the high intelligence organisation MENSA.

At first I held them in high regards, until I noticed it was once again another organisation with the purpose of mental masturbation on "intelligent" level. I prefer to see them as a "know-a-lot, low intelligence organisation". (And yes there is a significant difference between intelligence and knowing much).

 Quote:
Anamnesis - ancient Greek idea that we have souls, that our present lives have been influenced by knowledge and experiences from previous lives. Examples exist of children who remember a past life, and whose experiences of a past life has a direct impact on their present life, for instance the case of James Leininger.

Not really impressed actually, the kid could have flipped trough the book by accident and read that particular passage.
I call it bullshit, unless the kid can come up with very specific details which are not written in any book or has been told by the persons he has met during this "act". Let him accept the OMC of James Randi and see if he manages to get the prize. I'm bloody sure he simply can't.


Edited by Dimitri (11/21/10 06:28 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44319 - 11/21/10 08:40 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Dimitri]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri

Ever thought about the fact almost any living animal can copy behavior? It's easy to imagine a bird being born and for the time it stays in the mothers nest watching how the nest has been built. It aplies to almost all animals and insects.


I can't see it. The bird leaves the nest with the knowledge of nest building, but if you are aware of any studies showing the parent bird teaching the young nest building whilst in the nest give me the link.

There is a possibility bees may be teaching each other, I am going to sit on the fence on that one.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
At first I held them in high regards, until I noticed it was once again another organisation with the purpose of mental masturbation on "intelligent" level. I prefer to see them as a "know-a-lot, low intelligence organisation". (And yes there is a significant difference between intelligence and knowing much).


Did you make the grade for membership of MENSA?

You make a massive generalisation of high IQ people who join MENSA.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Not really impressed actually, the kid could have flipped trough the book by accident and read that particular passage.
I call it bullshit, unless the kid can come up with very specific details which are not written in any book or has been told by the persons he has met during this "act". Let him accept the OMC of James Randi and see if he manages to get the prize. I'm bloody sure he simply can't.


Must have been a very clever two-year-old to come up with all those names, facts and knowledge that nobody else knew about until it was confirmed. He could just about spell his name, but at two was unable to read.

I dislike it when people dismiss something without first taking time to read about it. I have the book, spoken to the parents, studied every aspect of the James Leininger case. In my mind I am satisfied that the case is authentic.

I am happy to start another thread to debate that case with you, and I will be interested after you have studied the case a bit more for you to show me the flaws.
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#44321 - 11/21/10 09:20 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: mabon2010]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
I can't see it. The bird leaves the nest with the knowledge of nest building, but if you are aware of any studies showing the parent bird teaching the young nest building whilst in the nest give me the link

I didn't say the parents learned the bird how to build nests. I merely said the young bird could see other birds building/rearranging a nest and simply mimic the behavior. There is still a great deal of trial and error involved. No bird can make a decent nest from the first time, which is why you sometimes find nests on the ground, pieces of wood which were used as building materials etc. .

It's a false and quite wrong idea shown by the many decent documentaries and biology books on accident. Almost every documentary skips that part of trial and error in building.
Same thing goes for bee and wasp hives. Every summer I discover loose pieces of such a hive which remained unfinished or "badly" built. Trial and error once again since it most of the time is found in unstable and "wrong" places to start a succesful hive.

 Quote:
Did you make the grade for membership of MENSA?

I did the test 2 years ago. I cancelled a few months afterwards. I wasn't very active and got disgusted with the attitude of most persons I encountered. Some needed a better sense of reality instead of mindless mental masturbation about their IQ's and how proud they were of being part of the organisation.

 Quote:
Must have been a very clever two-year-old to come up with all those names, facts and knowledge that nobody else knew about until it was confirmed. He could just about spell his name, but at two was unable to read.

Names, facts and knowledge nobody knew until confirmed later on? I spot a fallacy, you to?
Now, I would love to see videotapes wherein the kid says these facts and calls people by their names. But I am VERY certain some sort of official said a few names and the kid answered with yes or no as in most reincarnation cases. I am also pretty sure that some of the so-called facts and knowledge are a result of remembering such yes or no -questions and simply repeating the answer.

How critical thinking can be easy isn't it? Also the reason why I am seldom impressed.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44323 - 11/21/10 10:00 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Dimitri]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri

I didn't say the parents learned the bird how to build nests. I merely said the young bird could see other birds building/rearranging a nest and simply mimic the behavior. There is still a great deal of trial and error involved. No bird can make a decent nest from the first time, which is why you sometimes find nests on the ground, pieces of wood which were used as building materials etc. .

It's a false and quite wrong idea shown by the many decent documentaries and biology books on accident. Almost every documentary skips that part of trial and error in building.
Same thing goes for bee and wasp hives. Every summer I discover loose pieces of such a hive which remained unfinished or "badly" built. Trial and error once again since it most of the time is found in unstable and "wrong" places to start a succesful hive.


Fair enough. Your theory is sound.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
I did the test 2 years ago. I cancelled a few months afterwards. I wasn't very active and got disgusted with the attitude of most persons I encountered. Some needed a better sense of reality instead of mindless mental masturbation about their IQ's and how proud they were of being part of the organisation.


I dropped out because I got bored with them, a waste of money in my opinion. But things have moved on in the world, and I may check out MENSA again.


 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Names, facts and knowledge nobody knew until confirmed later on? I spot a fallacy, you to?
Now, I would love to see videotapes wherein the kid says these facts and calls people by their names. But I am VERY certain some sort of official said a few names and the kid answered with yes or no as in most reincarnation cases. I am also pretty sure that some of the so-called facts and knowledge are a result of remembering such yes or no -questions and simply repeating the answer.

How critical thinking can be easy isn't it? Also the reason why I am seldom impressed.


If you are wanting some examples:

1. The kid knew the names of Jack Larson and other fellow pilots from his time as James Huston Jr in World war 2

2. The kid knew about the Corsairs, a type of experimental aircraft, that nobody knew until a photo emerged of James Huston with the Corsair.

3. The kid knew about a painting that only James Huston and his sister knew about.

There are loads of information in the book, it is detailed.

Only three possibilities could be possible from this case:

1. Error
There was too much evidence and matches for there to be error.

2. Fraud
I looked at the family who are people of integrity, down to earth and caring. The father as a Christian refused to believe in reincarnation, and had to be forced to admit against all the evidence that reincarnation was possible.

It would have been an extremely heartless thing to create a fantasy and involve war veterans, James Huston's family and a little boy in an elaborate fraud, for little financial gain. And any such person capable of that is easy to catch out over time.

Fraud is unlikely.

3. The kid had a past life.
On balance of probabilities I opted to 3.

Of course, it is better for people to make their own minds up, rather than take my word for it, so I invite them to look into that case and draw their own conclusions.


Edited by mabon2010 (11/21/10 10:02 AM)
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#44325 - 11/21/10 10:35 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: mabon2010]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
1. The kid knew the names of Jack Larson and other fellow pilots from his time as James Huston Jr in World war 2
2. The kid knew about the Corsairs, a type of experimental aircraft, that nobody knew until a photo emerged of James Huston with the Corsair.
3. The kid knew about a painting that only James Huston and his sister knew about.

There are loads of information in the book, it is detailed.

Details are worthless if the book is biased and already starts from the viewpoint of someone who believes in reincarnation. I am pretty convinced such is the case and combined with the trickery or "mistakes" mentioned ealier the case is as typical as the 40-year old hag claims to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra or Marlyn Monroe. The only exceptional about it would be the mentioning of being it the reincarnation of a person who is not known to the greater public. More impressive then the claim of being a reincarnation of your very late great-grand father and a bit more unique then being a reincarnated princess.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44330 - 11/21/10 12:33 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Dimitri]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
@ Dimitri

I don't want this topic going way off topic into the subject of reincarnation. I am happy to debate with you on reincarnation in another thread for that purpose.

For the record, the father was a skeptic of reincarnation and went to great lengths to prove his son wrong, and failed.

It is an interesting book, and worth a read.


Edited by mabon2010 (11/21/10 12:34 PM)
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#44346 - 11/21/10 08:42 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Dimitri]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: dimitri
You life being controlled by yourself is very loosely true. You have the idea of being in control of your own life, in reality you tend to be persuaded to fit into different social cultures, to be compared to different kinds of people, your actions being labeled etc..
You have the choice what you are going to do next, but try to notice that your own decisions and that the idea of your life being only controlled by yourself is also an illusion. Every action you make is a result from persuation under social pressure from friends, relatives, family,.. and is sub-consciously not really your own choice but an advice and idea which seemed good enough in your opinion to be followed for the gratification of your inner needs/emotions.


I completely understand and can agree with most of this. Outwardly, people want to have an acceptable label to those of their communities and friends. Therefore, causing us to maybe make better decisions or worse decisions depending on the situations. The reason I remain to believe that in the end we can and some do choose to make their own choices goes along with much of the things that I have been dealing with in my own life. I have done great things as of late and only after I got these things done did that support or peer "persuasion" actually kick in. Much of what I was doing for myself was not received in a manner that would support my decisions but in the end the choices that I have made I know will land me in a better place.

Now one might argue that this is again another way that my decisions were affected by peer/family persuasions because the lack of support gave me what was needed to continue on with what I was doing. Almost like it was out of a need or want to prove that this was right for me and that I knew what the right choices were for me. However, I have to argue back the point that I didn't need the support or the persuasion and the lack thereof had no effect on the decisions that executed. I appreciate the support that I am getting now as it is always nice to have someone back you up in large changes in your life but beforehand, I realized that at the the end of the day, I was the one that had to make the choice and I was the only one in control of it.. Not the outsiders.

In the end, those who are there to support me are those I keep in my circle. On the other side, those who do not wish to support my going forward are obviously trying to hold me back in the position of life that I am in. Therefore, regardless, I do not take in consideration what anyone really thinks.. Push comes to shove, it's me in this world and I can only see up from here.

 Originally Posted By: dimitri
It is considered to be a Satanic virtue to know oneself and to see yourself as the highest good within the (your own) universe.
But there is always that sense of realism and honesty to oneself that is lacking greatly.
Might I ask, in all honesty, what your current goal at the moment is?


I have several personal goals. If this, indeed, is what you are asking. I have a layout for my education and where I want to be in the next five years. I just got accepted and enrolled into a high standing school in the area. I will start in Jan and I will graduate by the end of next year. This school has a 90% placement rate, which means that I will be able to obtain a job that is not only rewarding and enjoyable but will pay me more than pennies. This will improve my life greatly as I have been living from pay check to pay check trying to support a four person household and extra bills on the side while trying to get back into school.

After I graduate from this school, I intend on enrolling in a local, also well standing university, in the area to start the road to my masters (in Forensic Sciences) which I wish to obtain from Michigan State University.

During my pathways through my education, I want to eventually buy a house and be able to provide for my family since my mother is having a hard time as of late with her health conditions.

My goals for my journey through Satanism is to continue improving myself and never stop learning about whatever it is that crosses my path. Also, never stop questioning everything even if I am met with oppositions. I will meet everything head to head. Always. I am a fairly open person to just about anything and I am also stubborn which I believe will help me through out everything. I have the will and I have the strength and tools within myself to get everything that I need done. For a long time I didn't have a plan. I have a plan now and I have my reasons for setting these goals for myself.

My first goal was to leave the dead end job that I was working and enroll in a school that would provide me with the skills I needed to be better at something I love and while also being able to take care of my family. What can I say? Check!

 Originally Posted By: fnord

You have your mission statement, you will either realize it or you will fail. Time will tell.


This IS my own path.. my life.. and my mission statement. Like Fnord wrote on my introduction post, I will either sink or swim.. and I like I responded, I am far to stubborn to die in such a uncool way as drowning.

 Originally Posted By: dimitri
Even to the extend that true individualistic thinking is quite utopic.


Surely, I can agree with this as well. We can all be influenced by outside opinions, sideways glances and underhanded advice given by those who may think that they know what is better for us than we do ourselves. However, we make the choice to give them that power if we do indeed follow the path they choose for us instead of making our own pathways through it all.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#44361 - 11/21/10 09:56 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: mabon2010]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
Reincarnation? Don't you mean rebirth? There is a huge difference in the two meanings of the very different words as they connote diverse processes when a person experiences mortal death. I am not apotropaic, but rather potropaic which is the dipolar antipode of the former. With this in Mind, a corporeal death is a transformation that neither encompasses a correspondance to physical life or an afterlife...to me. As I engage the supra-consciousness by seeing and knowing myself, an obverse opine that is an Absolute Truth for my death is beginningless and endless receiving an inverse correspondance to life as we know it. (Nothingness, Emptiness, Void) Let me phrase it in a manner in which you can comprehend: the abyss...the great abyss without supports is what I...am and will...return or transmigrate...which is neither whither or hither or tither. The immanent knowledge of death is a phenomena which is psychologically imponderable, and one fact we all must face.

My esteem lies behind rebirth with a purpose for the select individuals to this life. In Setism, it is called Xeper. Rather I will experience moksa (Sanskrit) which means the futurity of no-birth, but that is another story. The essence of Reality is questioned. Ultimate Reality is implored. As I see it, the life of particulars is an oneiric illusion. The ascension of epistemic perspectives causes heartfelt yearnings of death, but effects are definitively ensuing of death in which focus on the ineffable, Absolute "Zero" that is a vast Emptiness.

It makes me feel strange, as I am faced with askesis for futurely concerns and have gone through kenosis. The austere predicates made me latch on divergent views of Indulgences: 1) Those promoting pessimism, ignorance, laziness, criminal tendancies and doubt. 2) Those promoting sensuality, greed, jealousy, anger and delusion. 3) Those promoting neceesary energy to the body and help achieve balance. In addition, Indulgences and non-Indulgences came to fruition which states for an optimal concrescence the giants discern carnal objects as Indulgences through non-Indulgences. (A bit complicated, at first.) When you aspire to other types of thinking, you realize that non-dialectic thought is rectilinear, partial, fragmentary and one-sided.

You all have obverse opines...further develop them.

666
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
Page all of 2 12>


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.039 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 37 queries. Zlib compression disabled.