A new interview with Tal

[NorthboundZax]

Wade

Your attempt to catalogue and quantify my response per se is unobjectionable; but your ongoing blocking attempts, which apparently for you are inseparable from consciousness itself, I do find objectionable in this context. And frankly, to digress a bit, I think that bodes very ill for any career you might wish to pursue in therapy. No one wants a therapist who's willfully blind to the obvious, do they?

What I'm trying to say is, I don't think my "situation" was "unspecified" at all; and all you're doing by pretending it is and refusing to acknowledge it as I myself explained it to you, is making yourself look even more deluded and ignorant than you did on our other interview threads - something which I'd actually assumed would be impossible.

My "situation", if by some chance it was unclear, was that I had discovered that Joseph Smith was not a reliable source of information about his experiences (something which, evidently unbeknownst to you, even church apologists end up admitting at least on the topic of his supposedly "sacred" sexcapades). To put it more clearly, I discovered that Joseph Smith's religion was a fraud. I discovered that our sun was not "borrowing" its light from an as-yet-undiscovered star called "Kolob", but rather produced light through internal nuclear processes; all six billion humans have not descended from two caucasian Missouri residents who lived a mere 3000 BC; not every human and animal was killed in a global flood a mere three odd thousand years ago, contrary to canonical LDS claims; the Book of Abraham had a relationship to its supposed source text of the Breathing Permit of Hor, only in the endlessly mutating theories of feverishly deluded cult apologists, and nowhere else...I realized it was unlikely to the point of impossible that three, 2000 year old Native Americans were wandering around performing acts of charity....

(I could go on for pages)

Long story short: I realized that there was as little reason to believe that Mormonism was what it claimed, as there was to believe that Moonie-ism, communism, Nazism, Jehovah's Witnessism, or any other "one-true-ism" was, and in truth, a good deal less reason, since it contains so many internal contradictions that it could never hope, even on its own terms, to plausibly claim truthfulness. And I saw a desperate, ambitious young man, like many other thousands of desperate, ambitious young men, who founded a religion, the end. I realized I was wrong about everything that I thought I "knew", and my whole life had been built on a lie.

Is that not "specified" for you? I got something like this from Midgley once in email - guys, who can't make sense even in the odd cases where they actually try, whose bizarre ramblings are actually painful in their lunacy for non-cultists to read, showing up to tell everyone who isn't in their ridiculous, transparently fraudulent CULT, that they are the ones suffering from some sort of psychological incapacity! It's pitiable. You're in a cult, Wade, and it really, really shows in the way you speak. It's too bad that as far as I can see, you will never recognize that. Only God knows what you and I might have been able to contribute more to mankind if we hadn't wasted so much time in one...

T.

[_wenglund]

Tal,

That was quite an interesting and telling reaction (or over-reaction, as the case may be) to my rather benign request for specifications. There was nothing sinister or underhanded or "blocking" in that request. It is just that it is more useful (for reasons that may become obvious as the "interview" progresses) to tie the emotions to specific and identifiable events (moments in time when your "realizations" may have reached critical mass, and the hightened emotions ensued in consequence thereof).

But, if you feel that describing the specific event(s) is objectionable to you, I suppose we can still proceed with the generalized "situations" you enumerated.

What about the unspecified ratings and freq/durations of certain emotions. Do you object to specifying those as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[NorthboundZax]

Oops, I just edited this post and submitted it, and saw that you'd already responded.

By the way, the very fact that you are so adept at blocking, that you could actually convince yourself after reading my post that my objection was to you merely "describing" what I'd said, is all the testament we need of that very blocking. My objection is to you ignoring my specification of my "situation", and once again, it was that I'd discovered Joseph Smith's religion was a fraud.

As I said before, you're free to play all the mindgames you want on yourself (and frankly, it seems like you've been doing so for a long, long time....I can only imagine how much time you yourself have spent in therapy trying to overcome heaven knows whatever "spiritual ailment" the cult you're in convinced you you had). But I don't really want to be a facilitator for someone's ongoing attempt at keeping themselves in a cult-sponsored psychological maze, you know?

It's your life, Wade. You can do what you want with it. I don't really want to spend mine in a transparently fraudulent cult, but if that's what makes you happy, I say go for it.

T.

[_harmony]

I'm not sure it's productive to try to use a frequency scale or even a rating scale to describe situations like this. All you end up with in the end is a useless meaningless number.

It's like saying, after all's said and done, a given individual's life is a 7... overall, okay, but the number doesn't correlate to what life is really like for that individual, nor does it automatically correlate to anyone else who would rate their life as a 7 also. Life isn't a number.

[_wenglund]

Oops, I just edited this post and submitted it, and saw that you'd already responded.

By the way, the very fact that you are so adept at blocking, that you could actually convince yourself after reading my post that my objection was to you merely "describing" what I'd said, is all the testament we need of that very blocking. My objection is to you ignoring my specification of my "situation", and once again, it was that I'd discovered Joseph Smith's religion was a fraud.

As I said before, you're free to play all the mindgames you want on yourself (and frankly, it seems like you've been doing so for a long, long time....I can only imagine how much time you yourself have spent in therapy trying to overcome heaven knows whatever "spiritual ailment" the cult you're in convinced you you had). But I don't really want to be a facilitator for someone's ongoing attempt at keeping themselves in a cult-sponsored psychological maze, you know?

It's your life, Wade. You can do what you want with it. I don't really want to spend mine in a transparently fraudulent cult, but if that's what makes you happy, I say go for it.T.

Again, this is another interesting and telling reaction to my clarification of what specifications I was looking for and why. It, ironically, evaded the simple and benign and clarifying questions that I asked.

To clarify again, the specified "situation" that I am curious about is the event (time/place) where your "discovery" that " Joseph Smith's religion was a fraud" reached critical mass such that the stated emotions were envoked.

But, again, if that is getting too specific for your comfort, we can proceed without it--that is, if you are still willing to proceed. Just let me know.

Will you or will you not be answering my simple and benign question about specifying the rate and freq/duration of your stated emotions?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_rcrocket]

It's your life, Wade. You can do what you want with it. I don't really want to spend mine in a transparently fraudulent cult, but if that's what makes you happy, I say go for it.

T.[/color]

Is Christianity sans Mormonism transparently fraudulent?

[_wenglund]

I'm not sure it's productive to try to use a frequency scale or even a rating scale to describe situations like this. All you end up with in the end is a useless meaningless number.

It's like saying, after all's said and done, a given individual's life is a 7... overall, okay, but the number doesn't correlate to what life is really like for that individual, nor does it automatically correlate to anyone else who would rate their life as a 7 also. Life isn't a number.

Were I suggesting anything close to "life is a number", then you may have a point. I didn't, and so you don't. Rather, I was using the numbers as a SYMBOL for one person to describe to other people the level and freq/duration of a given emotion that the one person felt at a given point in time and for a given reason. It is a common, legitimate, and quite useful means within the social sciences and medicine for conveying certain things not externally observable (pain and emotions, etc.). You would have known this were you to have even a modicum of familiarity with the social sciences, let alone a capacity for grasping common sense precepts and practices.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mercury]

It's your life, Wade. You can do what you want with it. I don't really want to spend mine in a transparently fraudulent cult, but if that's what makes you happy, I say go for it.

T.[/color]

Is Christianity sans Mormonism transparently fraudulent?

Its fraudulent but with older fraudulent information.

[_harmony]

I'm not sure it's productive to try to use a frequency scale or even a rating scale to describe situations like this. All you end up with in the end is a useless meaningless number.

It's like saying, after all's said and done, a given individual's life is a 7... overall, okay, but the number doesn't correlate to what life is really like for that individual, nor does it automatically correlate to anyone else who would rate their life as a 7 also. Life isn't a number.

Were I suggesting anything close to "life is a number", then you may have a point. I didn't, and so you don't. Rather, I was using the numbers as a SYMBOL for one person to describe to other people the level and freq/duration of a given emotion that the one person felt at a given point in time and for a given reason. It is a common, legitimate, and quite useful means within the social sciences and medicine for conveying certain things not externally observable (pain and emotions, etc.). You would have known this were you to have even a modicum of familiarity with the social sciences, let alone a capacity for grasping common sense precepts and practices.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I believe my masters in Counseling Psych qualifies, Wade. Which is why I posted what I did.

A scale is not useful, if there is no standard to compare it to. Asking a patient to qualify their pain on a scale of 1 -10 is not terribly useful, if the range isn't something they can relate to.

A 7 on the pain scale for me could be a 3 on someone else's pain scale, or a 9 on someone else's. Comparing it to something else with which the person is familiar, like How does this pain compare to child birth?, is more helpful in gauging the subjective.

And frequency has little if anything to do with what you're trying to discover. Once is enough for some people. Others have a 'straw that broke the camel's back' type of stamina until the last straw.

You'd do better to stick with qualitative descriptions, rather than try to put emotions into a quantitative range. Of course, you, with your personality quirks, will never be able to do that now, since I suggested it. And of course, I understood that going in.

[_wenglund]

I'm not sure it's productive to try to use a frequency scale or even a rating scale to describe situations like this. All you end up with in the end is a useless meaningless number.

It's like saying, after all's said and done, a given individual's life is a 7... overall, okay, but the number doesn't correlate to what life is really like for that individual, nor does it automatically correlate to anyone else who would rate their life as a 7 also. Life isn't a number.

Were I suggesting anything close to "life is a number", then you may have a point. I didn't, and so you don't. Rather, I was using the numbers as a SYMBOL for one person to describe to other people the level and freq/duration of a given emotion that the one person felt at a given point in time and for a given reason. It is a common, legitimate, and quite useful means within the social sciences and medicine for conveying certain things not externally observable (pain and emotions, etc.). You would have known this were you to have even a modicum of familiarity with the social sciences, let alone a capacity for grasping common sense precepts and practices.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I believe my masters in Counseling Psych qualifies, Wade. Which is why I posted what I did.

A scale is not useful, if there is no standard to compare it to. Asking a patient to qualify their pain on a scale of 1 -10 is not terribly useful, if the range isn't something they can relate to.

I trust that Tal has the cognitive skills to relate to the difference between very mild emotions and sever emotions. So, your point isn't relevant. Also, those who practice Cognitive Behavioral Therapy use precisely the scale that I did. In fact, I got the scale from the leading experts on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Dr.'s Aaron and Judeth Beck--which is why I posted what I did.

A 7 on the pain scale for me could be a 3 on someone else's pain scale, or a 9 on someone else's. Comparing it to something else with which the person is familiar, like How does this pain compare to child birth?, is more helpful in gauging the subjective.

You are falsely presupposing that the intent is to compare one person's pain scale with someone else's. It is not. Rather, it is to get at least some indication what the patient is experiencing, and also to determine if the patient has experienced an improvement in the level of emotion they are experiencing. Strange, that with your alleged Masters in Pyche you would not have thought of that.

And frequency has little if anything to do with what you're trying to discover. Once is enough for some people. Others have a 'straw that broke the camel's back' type of stamina until the last straw.

First of all I doubt that you have the least clue what it is I am trying to discover (as evinced by your misunderstandings thus far). And, secondly, frequency and duration are used with emotions like depression to diagnose whether the person is clinically depressed or not. Again, I find it strange that with your alleged Masters in Pyche you would not have thought of that.

You'd do better to stick with qualitative descriptions, rather than try to put emotions into a quantitative range. Of course, you, with your personality quirks, will never be able to do that now, since I suggested it. And of course, I understood that going in.

I appreciate the advice, but I prefer to take advise from people who actually know what they are talking about (that, in this case, would not include you, even in spite of your alleged Masters in Psyche).

But, I have let you derail this thread enough with your alegedly educated ignorance. Back now to interviewing Tal--that is, if he is still amenible to being interviewed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-