The novice begins to

[Easy-Breezy English]

You are entitled to an opinion about Horney and I am entitled to an opinion about your opinion.

The thing is, at this point I sort of know what you are going to say, and you probably feel likewise. You are responding to something that you perceive as an attack on what you hold dear at the moment. And I'm on my own wavelength, so to speak. It's not really an exchange of ideas anymore, but rather two egos trying to assert themselves. There's only so far you can take this before it becomes boring and repetitive.

[acapnotic]

Easy-Breezy English, yes, we seem to be on different wavelengths. For me, Horney's books are a source of inspiration and insights, and as long as they work so for me, I don't care much how (un)scientific her theory is by today's standards. I recognize myself in her descriptions and don't need any other proof of her knowledge and understanding of the human psyche. What she says is interesting and thought provoking, and I need it to keep myself tuned -- because I can't change in a couple of days.

You are clearly interested in something else. I respect your personal experience with psychoanalysis, but as I wrote above, I have no idea what you were looking for and what you actually did to find it. So it's something very vague to me, and not very convincing. But even if you did exactly the same and failed, it doesn't mean I'm doomed to fail too. We are different.

[Easy-Breezy English]

This is very nicely put, acapnotic. Cool. And I'm in complete agreement.

[Easy-Breezy English]

Hey acapnotic, I'm reading a novel, and this quote strangely reminded me of you:

Does one's integrity ever lie in what he is not able to do? I think that usually it does, for free will does not mean one will, but many wills conflicting in one man.

:-)

[acapnotic]

and this quote strangely reminded me of you

I don't see why. Actually I don't understand what the quote means either. Can you explain it?

[Easy-Breezy English]

acapnotic, I'll think about it.

[mustang]

acapnotic, I'll think about it.

I also can't quite grasp its meaning. Sounds unnecessarily cryptic to me.

I've always had trouble deciphering sayings like these. Too deep.

[Easy-Breezy English]

I also can't quite grasp its meaning. Sounds unnecessarily cryptic to me.

Yeah, cause I've taken the quote out of context. Sorry about that - this posting on the go doesn't really do justice to either the author or the audience.

I'll elaborate when I have more time.

[Easy-Breezy English]

Can you explain it?

The quote is from Wise Blood by Flannery O’Connor. The protagonist, Hazel Motes, is borderline psychotic, but then all of her characters are. O'Connor is truly one of a kind, amply balancing wit, deep religious convictions, mockery, and the darkest of humor in her books.

Hazel Motes comes from a religious family in the American South. As he’s raised being fed various unsettling concepts regarding sin, damnation and redemption, he wants nothing more than to shake this legacy off. He becomes a flamboyant crusader against Christianity, even though existential issues continue to haunt him. At some point he even goes as far as organizing the “Holy Church of Christ Without Christ”. Effectively, though, he remains within the framework of the same paradigm, merely swapping the poles. In the end, he succumbs to his background and embraces Christianity, but in the most perturbing way – by blinding himself.

The question O’Connor raises in this quote is the one of free will. Her point is, I think, that we are repositories of clashing drives, tendencies and desires, rather than unified entities. When a particular part of us gets the upper hand, this gives us an illusion of making a choice. What we are unable to do defines us better than what we can do. Just like Hazel Motes' inability to part ways with Jesus is, for O'Connor, a measure of his integrity.

I don’t think she really answers the question, though, more like evades the answer. If I’m reading you correctly, you seem to believe in free will. I tend not to.

Somehow I don’t think I made things any clearer. :-) Oh well. It was just a fleeting thought as I was reading this novel, anyway. You might as well ignore this.

[acapnotic]

If I’m reading you correctly, you seem to believe in free will. I tend not to.

From an objective point of view, we are no freer than a tree. We are biological robots. Our freedom is simply our ability to act in our best interests. If we manage to do it, we are free. But we are not free from our nature, from what those interests are. We want this or that not because we choose to want it but because we are designed in a certain way. Men want women and women want men, for example. If they can satisfy their wants, they are free. If they can't, they are unfree. Apparently something stands in their way and obstructs them. It may be something outside or inside them. In this sense, neurotics aren't free, and healthy people are, even though both are driven by natural forces.

Neurotics are robots that can't properly execute their program. They are damaged robots, with buggy software. Robots that can't function the way they are designed to function. However, humans are robots that can recognize and fix their problems. They have some capacity for self-repair. It shouldn't be overestimated, but still it's real. It requires knowledge, of course, which that Motes guy apparently didn't have. This is what explains his failure. If you don't know how something works, you won't be able to repair it, no matter how much time and effort you put in.

[Easy-Breezy English]

However, humans are robots that can recognize and fix their problems. They have some capacity for self-repair. It shouldn't be overestimated, but still it's real. It requires knowledge, of course

To me, this argument implies an external agency of some sort. Claiming that you truly know what your needs are, how exactly your psyche functions, which way we are designed psychologically, and what to do to fix supposed problems - wow. Talk about megalomania. You couldn't even satisfactorily answer the question which pain is avoidable and which is not.

Along with the vulgar form of psychoanalysis, you seem to follow the Enlightenment line by trying to fix everything with reason and logic. Just get your facts straight, apply scientific principles, and voila. What this tends to lead to, though, is Bazarovesque (I'm referring to "Отцы и дети" here) arrogance and eventual defeat.

It requires knowledge, of course, which that Motes guy apparently didn't have. This is what explains his failure.

This, in fact, is the exact opposite of her idea. But that's beyond the point.

[acapnotic]

You couldn't even satisfactorily answer the question which pain is avoidable and which is not.

Avoidable pain is one you can avoid. Of course, if you don't try to, you won't know.

you seem to follow the Enlightenment line by trying to fix everything with reason and logic.

How else can you fix anything? With magic?

Just get your facts straight, apply scientific principles, and voila. What this tends to lead to, though, is Bazarovesque (I'm referring to "Отцы и дети" here) arrogance and eventual defeat.

Btw, I remember you criticizing Horney for not being scientific. Was it manifestation of your Bazarovesque arrogance?

[Easy-Breezy English]

I remember you criticizing Horney for not being scientific.

Good point. A non-science masquerading as a science is one of the most dangerous things out there. Even more dangerous than an overly ambitious science.

Was it manifestation of your Bazarovesque arrogance?

I definitely have this streak in me. Otherwise how would I recognize it? :-) Most of the things we criticize in others turn out to be our own secretly hated shortcomings. :-)

[acapnotic]

Easy-Breezy English, you seem to have the same issue with science as Motes had with Christianity. You want more and less of it at the same time. Will you end up blinding yourself? Actually, rejecting reason and logic is analogous to that.

[Easy-Breezy English]

you seem to have the same issue with science as Motes had with Christianity

LOL! If you say so. :-) Logic and scientific reason are your domain, and I'm not about to argue with a grandmaster. :-)
I often wonder what it must be like for you having to live in a world of people who are ...erm... less gifted. Must be frustrating as hell.

[acapnotic]

I often wonder what it must be like for you having to live in a world of people who are ...erm... less gifted. Must be frustrating as hell.

It must be one of your secretly hated shortcomings. I don't usually see others as less gifted.

[mustang]

acapnotic,

I don’t think that you are honest with others here, let alone with yourself.
You are often using your powers of logic to push people into a corner leaving them no means of escape.

As a man with a gift for clear thinking, you perfectly understand that most people just get pissed off at others when they point out to them how flawed their logic is and yet you just can’t help it – you have to rub it in. At every opportunity.

Why?

Maybe on a subconscious level you do really think that people whose lapses in logic you are gleefully picking apart are far less gifted than you or you just desperately want to prove your intellectual superiority over others?

Honestly, I see no other explanation here. And I don’t really believe that you are doing it jsu because you want to to make otehr people see reason. There must be something else.

[acapnotic]

mustang, the extraordinary power of my logic is a myth created by Easy-Breezy English. Don't make the mistake of trusting it more than she trusts it herself. I'm supposed to be very smart and have stellar logic, but, surprisingly, I'm totally confused and on the way to defeat. All I'm doing is wrong.

If you truly consider someone very smart and logical, you won't treat that person's ideas with contempt even if you disagree with them, because it may well be that he/she is right and you just don't see it yet. Since she keeps doing that, it's pretty clear that her excessive praise for my intellect is just words.

As for who is more gifted, there are different gifts. I may indeed be able to spot logical mistakes more easily, but it may be due to being more attentive. For example, there are a few typos in your post that are highly unlikely to survive in my writing. Does that make me more literate? I simply catch and correct them on the spot. I'm more focused when I write — apparently because it's more important to me how my writing looks than it's to you. I'd be a better editor than you, but you'd likely be a better author.

or you just desperately want to prove your intellectual superiority over others?

You are right and I really seem to want it, but I also realize the futility of this desire. I know I'm not a superman, but something deep down is still unwilling to let this dream go. I still need it, obviously. My goal now is to learn how to be what I am, rather than trying to implement my fantasies about myself.

[mustang]

acapnotic,

mustang, the extraordinary power of my logic is a myth created by Easy-Breezy English. Don't make the mistake of trusting it more than she trusts it herself. I'm supposed to be very smart and have stellar logic, but, surprisingly, I'm totally confused and on the way to defeat. All I'm doing is wrong.

Smart and shy. That’s a winning combination. :) On a more serious note though, I know that we have had our differences in the past and perhaps see the world in a different way but there’s no denying that you are a smart guy.

If you truly consider someone very smart and logical, you won't treat that person's ideas with contempt even if you disagree with them, because it may well be that he/she is right and you just don't see it yet. Since she keeps doing that, it's pretty clear that her excessive praise for my intellect is just words.

I beg to disagree. It seems that she genuinely believes that you have an innate gift for logic. You know, a type of guy who has a way with numbers and can quickly identify weaknesses in other people’s arguments.

What is making her behave so strangely, however, is the fact that she decided at some point in her life not to deal with her inner demons. He thought process probably went like that: “Life is too short to waste it on teenage stuff like self –exploration. I’m a fully-fledged adult now, for god’s sake! There’s no point in thinking negative thoughts trying to change who I am. We are what we are and we have to accept ourselves for what we are. Period.”

And then she just moved on with her life simply pushing “crazy thoughts” out of her mind. But the demons are still there, hiding in the deep recesses of her mind. And they are ready to strike.

Every single of us, everybody, irregardless of our social standing, intelligence level, cultural background, has personal demons that need to be slayed so that we could really find our true selves some just have chosen not to.

[acapnotic]

mustang, I think you are correct in your analysis. Defying scientific principles, reason and logic is definitely demonic behavior. :) Demons naturally hate all those things because they threaten their existence. Of course, no demon wants to be found and fixed.

[Beginner]

I checked my English on the website puzzle-english.com only for interest and the result of the overall level of language proficiency was B2. Listening is above average, speaking is above average (I don't understand how they tested it, if you don't need speech in this test), grammar is below average, writing is below average. I didn't know that you can get a high overall score if you are only strong in a few skills. Vocabulary - 5100 (at one time it was 8400). This is ridiculous. I certainly don't trust this exam, but it amused my ego ). Just think about it. Just 3.5 months of classes, and you already have a B2!

[Beginner]

I noticed that I have problems watching movies in English. The images on the display make it difficult to understand the movie. When I just listen, I don't have these problems. I think I understand why. When I just listen, I hear an English word, then the word appears in my mind as it is written, then the image appropriating to that word (or phrase) appears, and finally I understand the meaning. When I watch a movie, the second step becomes difficult because the image on the display interferes with the image of the word as it is written, and I slow down. I'm distracted by moving pictures. I also don't like to include subtitles. If I do this, I only start reading the subtitles, not watching the movie. Well, I don't like to watch movies in English, but I like to read scripts for movies I've already watched. But someday... I belive that I'll watch the movie, something like "Secret files" without problems.

[Beginner]

Acapnotic, how are you, mate. How is your health? Is in your life anything light and pleasure. Or you have only physical pain and soul suffering?

[Michelangelo]

Beginner, Mate, your grammar and writing is bad because you keep using google to write. Give up google translate and your grammar and writing will soar to the B2 level in no time once you could understand English movies even without watching the picture. In my case it is otherwise - I could understand an action movie only by watching even without sound, but listening only to the sound makes me disappointed and confused.

[Dragon27]

Seems to me kinda similar to the usual problem of understanding via translation. People put too much effort into memorizing all this "word - translation" pairs (through word lists or whatever) and it interferes with their real-time direct understanding of the target language. Having any intermediate steps in your comprehension process is too slow and problematic (in this case, it introduces unnecessary disruptions when the part of your mental apparatus that is supposed to be processing visual information has too many tasks to work with at once). You should try to associate the sound directly with the meaning of the message.