Must we be normal?

It comes from your belief that the POV of others regarding you is relevant, that it is, as you perceive it, judgmental and worthy of consideration.

No it doesn't.  I never said it was relevant to me, I just said it happened.  Explain your "logic" so we can all understand what you mean.

Brian
No it doesn't.  I never said it was relevant to me, I just said it happened.  Explain your "logic" so we can all understand what you mean.

It couldn't have happened to you if it wasn't relevant, Brian. That simple, that "logical". I understand how this flies in the face of your major theme of being a victim of Life instead of its Creator but...

It couldn't have happened to you if it wasn't relevant, Brian.

So  only what is relevant to me happens to me?  So what is relevant to you doesn't happen to me because it is not relevant to me?   What is relevant to anybody else doesn't happen to me either so long as it is not relevant to me?  Does this mean that I am relevant to you?  Wow, I'm flattered that you think that much of me.

So  only what is relevant to me happens to me?  

Only what is relevant to your journey through physical reality is relevant to you. There are no inefficiencies regardless of your inability/focus to understand the mechanics of physical reality.

So what is relevant to you doesn't happen to me because it is not relevant to me?

Of course.

What is relevant to anybody else doesn't happen to me either so long as it is not relevant to me?  Does this mean that I am relevant to you?  Wow, I'm flattered that you think that much of me.

The rat who is eating the serpentine cable off my diesel engine is relevant to me too. 

Only what is relevant to your journey through physical reality is relevant to you. There are no inefficiencies regardless of your inability/focus to understand the mechanics of physical reality.


Of course.


The rat who is eating the serpentine cable off my diesel engine is relevant to me too. 

We can continue but HERE

We can continue but HERE

I'm sorry but this thread may exist in your physical reality but in mine, no access. 

I'm sorry but this thread may exist in your physical reality but in mine, no access. 

It was moved to a more appropriate forum HERE

Back to the OP....

From previous conversations I think we are all in agreement that we are, at least in part, products of our previous inputs/experiences. That we are any more than those experiences is up for debate of course.

A significant proportion of those experiences provide suggestions and expectations of how we ‘should’ behave. Mostly this happens when our absorption and retention is at its peak - our early years. This conditioning is irresistible, and thus we are destined to imitate these behaviours and pass them on to the next generation. Normal begats normal; it’s a form of mass hypnosis. 

Resistance is futile.

https://www.verywellmind.com/magical-thinking-2671612

"It's when magical thinking clearly does not fit in with acceptable social norms that it can be a cause for concern."

The author of the above article seems to think that the difference between acceptable magical thinking and possible mental illness is simply one of social acceptance.  I thought to myself once, a number of years ago, "why is it relatively acceptable for people to believe that a wafer and some alcohol-free wine turn into the body and blood of a Jew who died 2000 years ago, but you are borderline schizophrenic if you believe it is possible with modern technology to mess with somebody's nervous system using high frequency radio waves and a sophisticated computer program."  I think the answer to this poor logic might give us an insight into the thinking processes of many internet skeptics and debunkers.

By a spooky coincidence, the Daily Grail yesterday had a link to this article entitled "Explaining the Unexplainable", discussing superstition/magical thinking and an apparent link to dopamine levels in the brain:
http://nautil.us/issue/60/searches/expla...ainable-rp

The story about sceptics, believers and dopamine looks very neat and tidy, but comparing with David Luke's account in the "Handbook for the 21st Century", it appears that it's a simplified version of rather more complicated results from a single study, not huge and not with the optimal methodology, that's never been replicated (or at least hadn't been when Luke wrote). Luke's conclusion is:
"Overall - with scant direct research, mixed and complex findings, and poor generalizability of the hypothesis to (a) other psychological explanations, and (b) most of the psychedelic-parapsychology literature - at present, the dopamine-apophenia [spurious pattern-recognition] conjecture remains very much rudimentary and unsupported."

Excellent.  I had never heard of David Luke before so I just looked him up and found some of his books on Amazon.  Looks like a really interesting author.  Thanks Chris.