Topic: Words on my psychiatrist composed as of today
!MLHqI35Srs started this discussion 10 years ago#49,803
They are a cunning, enviably usurious and capaciously shifty “Elders of Zion”-minded and inspired Jewess, United Against Fascism recruitee and Common Purpose rotary society member, now shirking like a silhouette behind the scenes to another department in an advisory capacity to whomever their successor might be in the perpetration of all the tricks ever played against me, who would of course keep their membership thereto secretive in order not to reinforce valid notions of their vested interest to manoeuvre heiarchical levers in a Songbun-friendly fashion true to their Trotskyism-compelled ideological motivations, more still can it be easily conceived their capacities in shapeshifting such that the succession of Waller to Marr to themselves never even occurred, but just as an assurance to add an extra layer of ‘security’ to their machinations, so they would wish to sever a possible tie of inference such that their shiftiness explicates of their surreptitiously guarded wishes. Perhaps, in their consideration, worthier a foe than I might’ve ever deserved.
I'm really quite perplexed about all of it, in fact I'm scared of it.
You think you live in just one reality and it's true, we are all in the same reality.
But it's a reality where we as people live in world's far apart, because since we are humans, our only way to relate to reality is subjectivity. How we interpret facts are not always the same.
It seems like normal, of course we all have different opinions.... However, it isnt just that we have different opinions, we live inside our own world.
Ugh, I can't explain it. But it means, your reality as you perceive it, is something far far away from what's real, it's only your interpretations and symbolic relationship with reality.
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^][v]#647,311
@previous (B)
Just read my propaganda and accept it as one with a Universal reality of absolutist truths speaking deep into the soil of more perennial ages.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#647,312
You are trolling, right?
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 25 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#647,313
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^][v]#647,315
@previous (C)
It's unfortunate that you feel the need to blame-shift away from her iniquities the cause onto my non-existent propensity to seek successful ruses.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^][v]#647,318
@647,311 (!MLHqI35Srs)
Oh here you go again with your exaggerated view of reality.
Just the idea that you see pedophilia as a addiction is evidence enough of your distorted perception of reality.
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#647,319
@previous (B)
Wait, where and when did I state this?
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#647,321
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
If an amateur would explain it, it means that reality and truth means nothing to people.
People instead are relying on subjective interpretations and meaning of reality.
I'm sure everyone agrees that's true. However, it's exactly the acceptance of Symbolic interactionism which makes it so puzzling that people, secularists especially, at the same time think religion and politics are the last frontier for science to set straight with facts and therefore remove all differences.
Because if Symbolic interactionism teaches anything, we won't ever live in peace, there will always be differences.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#647,323
@previous (B)
So basically, some pomobabbling retard stole already pre-existing conflictual theoreses and decided to reify in intellectually deficient over-reductionism verifiably established relationships down to a mere issue of 'everyone agrees to a Zeitgeist because they don't agree to anything else'.
I'm personally not falling for your obtuse deconstruction of absolutism.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^][v]#647,324
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
Humans don't experience reality as something concrete.
You know what democracy is? Of course but have you ever really thought about the implications? We as humans disagree so much that we partake in this massive thing known as democracy. It's the only way they say, the only way we won't end up with a dystopia.
We face all these problems as a species yet we can't agree what shall be done.
Atheists vs theists is like a iconic battle where the debate is reality itself, about how we should see reality. But bitch, that's only the top of the tip of the iceberg.
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#647,325
@previous (B)
We do, generally, and the smarter you are, the better able one is to differentiate the woods from the forest and vice versa, i.e. to switch from small to bigger picture, and be able to synthesize big from small picture, or put another way, to see detail in largesse.
A loss of attention to detail is commonly associated with those endorsers of post-modernist ideological stances as a disguise of their own mediocre intelligence. LaCann was at the end of his lagging academic career when first conceiving of the seminal postmodern rhetoric after failing miserably in his original field of mathematics.
It's barely better than the sensory-only processing those retards at the level of taking everything at face value engage in, and that's only because at least they're being honest to themselves. Ever playing an ersatz-intellectual's equivalent of the same oneupmanship, you've opted for inverse-reification: thinking generalizations are the same as abstractions.
They're not, and you're fooling nobody, not a single person with an IQ above 130 is likely going to be convinced unless they're slightly touched by either mental illness or substance abuse damage.
Democracy has been critiqued by the best of them. A mass whose IQg is not sufficient for self-consciousness can't be said to be engaging in cognitive processes of reality, certainly, but this is not for the reasons you ascribe: you think, idiotically, that conflict is its own consensus, in reality, they're just malleable to any given preconceived consensum formulated by the top.
You're one such individual, thinking more of their consciousness than could possibly be ascribed on its face, given the sheer unimpressiveness of incogency your barely surface-touching rhetorical implorations. Cheers.
Triptych !!/xkPL9myM joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#647,344
mate you need to get a different psychiatrist
mine is a nice and helpful woman in her 40s or 50s.