TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Daniel Mackler - Essays For The Enlightenment Seeker
Pages (7): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Substances themselves can be addictive and create physical dependency. They alter the way the brain functions. Of course it�s a behavioural pattern, but that pattern can be dictated by the physical qualities of a drug, with absolutely no correlation with mummy or daddy issues. It is perfectly possible for any well-adjusted, happy person to become addicted to a substance that has addictive qualities, without the need to reference some hidden, psychological trauma from their childhood. Addiction is a complex area which is why simplistic nonsense like that spewed by whackler should be suspect to any critical thinker.

Indeed...and this addiction would fall under humans being innately masochists. Some less some more than others. This is something that Mr. Gabor Mate, who to me seems like a very intelligent and englightened man does not cover in this talk. I wonder if he covers it elsewhere in his treatment of addicts.

To add to my theory, humans also value memories, and feelings, so they see those moments of "high" from their vice as valuable, because they can go back to it. They also value feeeling something, instead of nothing. Which goes back to the idea of feeling 'alive.' For example, I simply love the feeling of weather. Whether it is a breeze, hot or cold air, wind, rain, etc. Weather itself makes me feel good...amongst other things, reminds me i'm alive. A drug addict might use the drug to make them 'feel alive', as one of its attractions.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno See, the thing with self-inquiry is that the only evidence that it yields the results that it does comes from personal experience. Mackler has 20 years of self-reflection (I'm guessing via some form of Vipassana or similar meditation) under his belt. He also has a decade's experience as a psychotherapist. Mate I believe, has close to, or over three decades of experience in his field (medical, palliative care, addiction counselling), also professes a life devoted to self-reflection and is brutally honest and publicly forthcoming about his own struggles with unconscious, compulsive behaviour.

A multitude of people have a great deal of experience and many of them come to different, often incompatible conclusions based on that experience. What can we glean from this?

The inevitable conclusion is that many of them must be mistaken, and so it follows that the mere fact that a belief has been reached through years of experience and self-reflection does not reliably indicate its truth.

This outcome is unsurprising. Experiences, including those resulting from self-reflection, can almost always be interpreted in a myriad of ways. And we also know that there are numerous cognitive biases which influence how people interpret their experiences.

An ancillary problem with self-reflection in particular is that even if it were a reliable means of ascertaining the truth--and it isn't--you still cannot generalize your own experience unto the rest of humanity. Maybe you have been in denial about a huge "cesspool of shit." Maybe you still are. But even if that insight were accurate, it doesn't follow that the same is true of myself or anyone else for that matter.

You see, that's why we insist on things like falsifiable hypotheses, objective evidence, and peer review: because claims which can survive that level of scrutiny are far more reliable than those which cannot. If I had a nickle for every quack who really believed based on his many years of experience that his alternative treatments worked, but who was wrong as a factual matter, then I would be flying around in my own private jet.

So when someone offering no evidence but their own say-so makes the rather audacious claim that all of "life's basic conflicts" can be traced back to a single unitary source, it would quite simply be irrational for me to believe them. And when they also prattle on about spirits, gods, and how they know things are true in their heart it doesn't exactly make them appear more credible.

Accordingly, I am not inclined to accept any proposition based solely on the experience and introspection of you, Mackler, Mate, or anyone else--including myself.

However, because Mate's claims are narrower, and therefore more plausible as an initial matter, and because he seems to be actually interested in trying to support his thesis with something more reliable than a mere subjective interpretation of an individual's personal experience, I think that his ideas are worthy of further exploration. As for Mackler, there is nothing more to explore: all of the evidence that he has provided is unreliable. Given the low quality of available evidence and the extraordinary nature of the claim, there is no rational basis for believing him and further inquiry in that area does not appear likely to be fruitful.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN It is perfectly possible for any well-adjusted, happy person to become addicted to a substance that has addictive qualities

Proof, please.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Addiction is a complex area which is why simplistic nonsense like that spewed by whackler should be suspect to any critical thinker.

Actually, what Mackler advocates is quite simple. And you can discuss and dissect any and all of it 'til the cows come home, but absolutely nothing that is discussed and dissected matters until you begin to apply what he proposes to yourself. Until that point, your counter-theories are like farts in the wind.

It's your mind that complicates simple matters as a rather twisted protection mechanism (no really, I'm quite happy being miserable!), which is why at this point in your life, no matter how hard you try, you simply will not "get" this.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 Indeed...and this addiction would fall under humans being innately masochists. Some less some more than others. This is something that Mr. Gabor Mate, who to me seems like a very intelligent and englightened man does not cover in this talk. I wonder if he covers it elsewhere in his treatment of addicts. To add to my theory, humans also value memories, and feelings, so they see those moments of "high" from their vice as valuable, because they can go back to it. They also value feeeling something, instead of nothing. Which goes back to the idea of feeling 'alive.' For example, I simply love the feeling of weather. Whether it is a breeze, hot or cold air, wind, rain, etc. Weather itself makes me feel good...amongst other things, reminds me i'm alive. A drug addict might use the drug to make them 'feel alive', as one of its attractions.

And then you have the case of newborn babies who are addicted to drugs. A baby isn�t conscious enough to be a masochist, nor do they have any immediate trauma (asides from bursting free from the womb!) that they need to escape from through self abuse. Yet they exhibit many of the hallmarks of their much older brethren, such as painful withdrawal.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Proof, please.

as above.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno "We on the outside" Addiction is addiction. It doesn't matter whether you're addicted to cocaine, booze, cigs, watching too much TV, spending too much time on the internet, jerking off to porn (feel free to eliminate the comma between the previous two), obsessively working out, staying late at the office, beating your wife and kids or fucking farm animals, it's all the same - the only difference is the relative degree of societal acceptance of your habit. If you actually listened to the Mate talk, you would have noticed that he says exactly the same thing. His going out and compulsively blowing $8K on classical music CDs in one day is no different from the heroin addict who stumbles into the derelict apartment building to buy his next fix. So, to conclude, there is no "we on the outside". Your addictions are every bit as harmful to yourself and to others as the Vancouver heroin addict's are, it's just that yours are somehow justified as being acceptable behaviour because, in lay terms, "everyone does it". Which begets the question, "If Johnny jumped off a bridge...?"

Now i'm on the outside...looking at a delusional person force a meaning into something said, that meant something else. Learn to comprehend what you read, or acquire understanding as to what it might mean, instead of what you try to force it to mean.

To help you understand, on the outside, means someone observing a drug addict, and the perceptions they might create about the addict through that observation. This is very far from "i am above all", that your and Halycon's anyone else's delusions or inability to comprehend language led to.

And I already stated addiction is a human trait a few posts down. For example your posting and wasting time on a forum is an addiction, primarily if you are getting nothing out of it but potentially empty relationships with people you hardly see. So you and anyone can freely apply my theory on addiction to your forum use, and perhaps find a cure through it. Since i'm furthur down the enlightenment path, at the end of the day, you could say i'm a helpful person, with an unconventional rhetoric and way of helping.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Actually, what Mackler advocates is quite simple. And you can discuss and dissect any and all of it 'til the cows come home, but absolutely nothing that is discussed and dissected matters until you begin to apply what he proposes to yourself. Until that point, your counter-theories are like farts in the wind. It's your mind that complicates simple matters as a rather twisted protection mechanism (no really, I'm quite happy being miserable!), which is why at this point in your life, no matter how hard you try, you simply will not "get" this.

And this is the kind of arrogant bollocks I come to expect from those who cannot provide substantive evidence with which to support their claims. �I�m not wrong, you simply don�t �get� it�. what a crock. And its laughable seeing you say �your counter-theories are like farts in the wind�, as if whackler�s ideas are any different or any better supported.

At least I have a considerable amount of medical opinion that supports my assertion. Substances are addictive. That much is as close to medical fact as we�re ever likely to get. They�re not �addictive if your mummy didn�t love you�, they�re addictive per se.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN And then you have the case of newborn babies who are addicted to drugs. A baby isn�t conscious enough to be a masochist, nor do they have any immediate trauma (asides from bursting free from the womb!) that they need to escape from through self abuse. Yet they exhibit many of the hallmarks of their much older brethren, such as painful withdrawal. as above.

There is no one single universal answer to drug addiction.
Babies addicted to drugs would fall under the human interest to enjoy time and space, and to feel something. They would not be masochistic anyway, because at that age they dont have the concscience or knowledge that what they are doing is bad for them or is hurting them, they are simply enjoying their time and space and feeling. And you cant exactly call them addicts, since they have no real control over the use, the control is coming from someone else.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter So when someone offering no evidence but their own say-so makes the rather audacious claim that all of "life's basic conflicts" can be traced back to a single unitary source, it would quite simply be irrational for me to believe them.

No one's asking you to.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Accordingly, I am not inclined to accept any proposition based solely on the experience and introspection of you, Mackler, Mate, or anyone else--including myself.

But you won't ever (well, never say never) apply any of what he proposes (which has also been proposed by many before him, over a rather large span of modern human existence) to yourself, so whether you're inclined to accept it or not is a rather moot point.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno No one's asking you to. But you won't ever (well, never say never) apply any of what he proposes (which has also been proposed by many before him, over a rather large span of modern human existence) to yourself, so whether you're inclined to accept it or not is a rather moot point.

lol, why did you bother quoting him at all if you�re not going to address a single issue he raised?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, why did you bother quoting him at all if you�re not going to address a single issue he raised?

Addictive behavior rooted in childhood trauma, no doubt.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, why did you bother quoting him at all if you�re not going to address a single issue he raised?

Because my attempting to further address any issues he's raised would be akin to trying to convince a brick that it's a butterfly.

So, I concede. You win.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 For example your posting and wasting time on a forum is an addiction, primarily if you are getting nothing out of it but potentially empty relationships with people you hardly see. So you and anyone can freely apply my theory on addiction to your forum use, and perhaps find a cure through it. Since i'm furthur down the enlightenment path, at the end of the day, you could say i'm a helpful person, with an unconventional rhetoric and way of helping.

You are correct, posting on internet message boards is one of my present addictions, and one that I am quite painfully aware of. Some day, it will fall by the wayside (as have my smoking, drinking and television watching habits) as my need for outside acceptance diminishes. I'm very much looking forward to that day.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno You are correct, posting on internet message boards is one of my present addictions, and one that I am quite painfully aware of. Some day, it will fall by the wayside (as have my smoking, drinking and television watching habits) as my need for outside acceptance diminishes. I'm very much looking forward to that day.

Right, but in no way directly comparable or life derailing as a drug or other substance addiction. People hardly talk about tv, internet, forum, texting, etc addictions in the same way. Most people call these addictions as "wasting time."

So I dont see how these simple time spending 'addictions' were put on the same level of a chronic drug addiction. It depends on how much those 'addictions' affect a persons life.


And from what I said, i'm sure there is more to using this forum than just wasting time and 'empty relationships', though one could argue the relationship arent the healthiest compared to those afforded in good real life relationships. That said, I think discussions on topics like this are quite beneficial and valuable use of time, and are as efficient as any real life forum where ideas are shared.

Hah, just found this gem (could have saved myself several hours of responding to you lot) on his site:

How To Use 15 Different Defense Mechanisms To Avoid Reading This Website

1. Denial: This is all completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with me.

2. Projection: Daniel Mackler is crazy, and I do not want to indulge in his sick point of view.

3. Sublimation: Why would I want to waste my time reading this junk; in fact, I just feel like going out, getting drunk, and having sex!

4. Regression: This website makes me SO, SO sad. I think I�ll just curl up under the blanket and cry�but first let me delete www.iraresoul.com from my browser history.

5. Humor: Oh my god, we�ve got a live one here�a �rare soul!� This guy reeks of a messiah complex if I ever saw one! LOL! Let me email a few of the titles of his essays (but not the content) to my friends so we can laugh about this kook together. And he�s a psychotherapist to boot!!! What a world we live in!

6. Displacement: I was NOT abused as a child in any way, shape, or form, and I HATE the writer of this website for trying to ram his point of view down my throat!

7. Intellectualization: This website describes an intrinsically interesting paradigm which strives to completely negate all the people (myself included) who had qualitatively wonderful childhoods.

8. Psychosis: This website is clearly too dangerous to read, because I�m sure the government is tracking it and will track me down for reading it.

9. Dissociation: Every time I read more than one short essay on this site I find myself getting really uncomfortable, then fading away, even falling asleep. Something must be wrong with this website � and I don�t think I�ll return to it. (Note to self: Tell psychiatrist to raise my anti-depressant dosage.)

10. Reaction Formation/Altruistic Superiority: I feel so bad for this Daniel Mackler fellow � the pain he must feel to have to write this stuff� In fact, I think I�ll email him a referral to a therapist who can help him work through his issues. Poor guy, he�s clearly got a lot.

11. Idealization-Devaluation/Splitting: This creep has the nerve to criticize my hero Alice Miller. Mackler, you don�t even get the first thing she�s talking about. In fact, you�re not fit to clean her shoes. Burn in hell, Mackler, you pompous moron.
12. Hypochondriasis/Somatization: Oh god, these essays give me SUCH a pounding headache. I need some ibuprofen.

13. Identification with the aggressor: God, can you imagine how Daniel Mackler�s parents must feel knowing their son is publicly writing this crap? God, I wish I could hear their side of the story�

14. Religiosity: Anyone who would consider writing an essay called �Jesus Rejected His Mother� has clearly not accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and savior. And in his retelling of the �Sermon on the Mount� he has the audacity to use the King James Version of the Bible as his base of operation. Blasphemy! Remind me to include this lost soul in my prayers tonight. Hallelujah!

15. Passive aggression: [The following is a fictional synthesis of many very real emails I�ve gotten over the years:] �Dear Mr. Mackler, thank you very much for sharing your point of view. You�ve clearly put a lot of energy into it and that is admirable. You are also an extremely good writer. However, I must point out that because you are a therapist you only hear the stories of a certain segment of the population and have mistakenly universalized their problems to everyone. Not everyone was traumatized. Not everyone had an awful childhood. Not every parent is damaging. (I am a parent � not a perfect one � but I love my children very much.) I think it is important that you know that your erroneous assumptions can be very harmful to people, perhaps your clients especially, and I hope, for your sake and theirs, that you reconsider what you write. Yours sincerely, ...


Immediately reminded me of:

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 Right, but in no way directly comparable or life derailing as a drug or other substance addiction. People hardly talk about tv, internet, forum, texting, etc addictions in the same way. Most people call these addictions as "wasting time."

Yeah, and the military calls accidentally killing one of their own "friendly fire", but it's still murder.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 So I dont see how these simple time spending 'addictions' were put on the same level of a chronic drug addiction.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Conventional pathology = unconventional pathology = pathology, whether you like it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 And from what I said, i'm sure there is more to using this forum than just wasting time and 'empty relationships'

Care to substantiate that for me?

hmmm...ok. nm

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno

that's funny, because i didn't see an entry for

whackler is a cunning profiteer who knows there is a huge market for new-agey, non-conformist rhetoric with people who don't know any better.

now, that's not to mock meditation generally (those damn monks seem to do alright) or any kind of psychoanalytical field. of course those things can be valuable. much more valuable than the un-parsed regurgitation of ideas that one doesn't even have the intellectual integrity to defend properly.

there have been an number of issues raised in this thread, and you are yet to address a single one of them. go meditate on that for a while.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Hah, just found this gem (could have saved myself several hours of responding to you lot) on his site:

You were wise to concede when you did.

quote:

Yeah, and the military calls accidentally killing one of their own "friendly fire", but it's still murder.

Although I fully acknowledge that it's aside from your point, I must point out that this is wrong as a legal matter. An accidental killing fails the mens rea requirement for murder.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Although I fully acknowledge that it's aside from your point, I must point out that this is wrong as a legal matter. An accidental killing fails the mens rea requirement for murder.

the people are represented by two separate but equally important groups. the police who investigate crime, and BATMAN who prosecute the offenders. these are their stories...

Lie #9: You Cannot Blame Parents, Because �They Did The Best They Could.�

My observation is that all parents, even the worst parents, �did the best they could.� Yet this doesn�t let any parent off the hook. A child has the right to blame his parents for their inadequacies�because their inadequacies damaged him. Laying blame at the feet of perpetrators is a huge step in breaking the intergenerational cycle of trauma�and sets the stage for healing.

Lie #10: Psychiatric Medications Help Many People.

Passively taking a pill, even if that pill helps you function better, sends your spirit the message that life�s answer do not come from within. This is an evil message, because it is untrue. People need to change their lives deeply, both inside and out, in order to heal. Real change is difficult�often hellishly so�but it is the only way.

Lie #11: Addictions and �Mental Illnesses� Are Diseases.

Addictions and so-called �mental illnesses� are symptoms of a deeper problem: unresolved trauma. Labeling symptoms as disease is easy and convenient for people who are terrified to look below the surface. Delving below the surface entails taking deeper personal responsibility, grieving, and feeling rage at traumatizers�often your own parents. How much easier to believe in �inherent� disease and let your parents off the hook?

After reading this, I decided this guy is a fucking moron and wont be reading any more of his bullshit trite.

^ You rock

quote:

Originally posted by wing ^ You rock

Seriously, who can read that garbage and not be inclined to want to clock that guy in the nose simply for his ridiculous stupidity?

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Lie #10: Psychiatric Medications Help Many People. Passively taking a pill, even if that pill helps you function better, sends your spirit the message that life�s answer do not come from within. This is an evil message, because it is untrue. People need to change their lives deeply, both inside and out, in order to heal. Real change is difficult�often hellishly so�but it is the only way.

That's opening up a can of worms...

quote:

Originally posted by idoru That's opening up a can of worms...

Exactly... it's garbage.

There are people who are truly mentally ill, aka they have imbalances that are not due to "trauma" and NEED to be on anti-psychotic meds. This guy needs to STFU.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Lie #9: You Cannot Blame Parents, Because �They Did The Best They Could.� My observation is that all parents, even the worst parents, �did the best they could.� Yet this doesn�t let any parent off the hook. A child has the right to blame his parents for their inadequacies�because their inadequacies damaged him. Laying blame at the feet of perpetrators is a huge step in breaking the intergenerational cycle of trauma�and sets the stage for healing.

As a kid I saw my parents as nearly perfect, highly ethical, with great morals...and this was primarily true...perhaps less true over time as they've become a product of their new environment. In the few situations where I felt they made mistakes on any part of my upbringing, they were blamed without much reasoning. As I got older I realized that Parents are just humans, and they are'nt perfect, and they make mistakes. Just like anyone, they too can be ignorant and lacking knowledge on how to raise a child in a different environment than where they grew up. So you have to 'understand' them and their 'humanity', and the imperfections that their human nature might have brought into situations.

I think a problem in our society is that people are taught that we have to be 'perfect', or to strive towards perfection, or that things can be this perfect ideal. I think this ideal hurts society more than it helps. Because there is less understanding towards mistakes, and this hurts the emotional intelligence of humans. And even if someone pushes themselves towards perfection, they are still short of perfection, so there is not much reward in the ideal. The Perception of not being perfect or being short of perfect waters down much of the work that went into it. It helps you be more productive, yet potentially still 'empty.'

I think religous books play a big part in this perfection ideal. And not enough is taught in schools on how to appreciate and understand human nature, and our imperfections. We are born out of probability, chaos, and imperfection, so why expect or tell people they should strive to be perfect?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.