Perfection and the closed mind.

[8th_wall]

Once one's mind is made up about a thing it becomes perfect in one's world view and one's mind tends to close.  I feel this is a hindrance on captivating dialogue, cutting short one's opportunity to see what reasoning developed more subtle notions of the topic at hand.  Is it better to take a side and be right or to take none and further one's knack of reasoning?  "Agreeing" with people, in this way of thinking, is taking sides.  It is not one's own reason that derived conclusion.  And said conclusion is not necessarily complete, even though seeming as such.

 

[ChrLzs]

Is the world only black and white or is it a bazilion shades and colours?  Does your observation not apply to both sides, and can an open mind be *too* open?

Me, I have an evidence-based approach, and I like to think widely about all the known explanations/issues that might apply.  If anyone makes a claim about something very very special and perhaps unheard of by science, then frankly, the evidence of same needs to be better than a one off youtube video or a cool story.

And that all seems to work very well for me.

What's your approach, and why not give a really good example that shows why you posted the observation, so we can better understand what improvements you are suggesting...?

Edited August 9, 2018 by ChrLzs

[DebDandelion]

1 hour ago, PsiSeeker said:

Once one's mind is made up about a thing it becomes perfect in one's world view and one's mind tends to close. (I don't believe this. It is a choice to not take anything else into consideration. And sometimes the final acceptance isn't perfect, it is simply accepting that this is what it is)  I feel this is a hindrance on captivating dialogue, cutting short one's opportunity to see what reasoning developed more subtle notions of the topic at hand.  (Just because i choose not to listen further doesn't mean i am happy with the scenario all it means is that I have accepted this as the best one...doesn't mean it is then perfect one...and just because I don't entertain more info might be cause the guy /girl giving the info drones on and on and I am tired... Or the info offered doesn't improve the situation. Then of course you have to look at the flipside ....just because you feel the info you are adding to my pool of knowledge is worth something doesn't mean it is...could be your perception.) it better to take a side and be right or to take none and further one's knack of reasoning?  "Agreeing" with people, in this way of thinking, is taking sides. (No it doesn't, just because I agree to your point doesn't mean I accept it as true. Means I understand your reasoning and respect your findings. So I agree to agree with your findings...not accept it as truth)  And I can see your It is not one's own reason that derived conclusion.  And said conclusion is not necessarily complete, even though seeming as such.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by DebDandelion
Smart phones not so smart

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, PsiSeeker said:

Once one's mind is made up about a thing it becomes perfect in one's world view and one's mind tends to close.  I feel this is a hindrance on captivating dialogue, cutting short one's opportunity to see what reasoning developed more subtle notions of the topic at hand.  Is it better to take a side and be right or to take none and further one's knack of reasoning?  "Agreeing" with people, in this way of thinking, is taking sides.  It is not one's own reason that derived conclusion.  And said conclusion is not necessarily complete, even though seeming as such.

 

Is your mind set on that thought? 

[8th_wall]

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Is the world only black and white or is it a bazilion shades and colours?  Does your observation not apply to both sides, and can an open mind be *too* open?

Me, I have an evidence-based approach, and I like to think widely about all the known explanations/issues that might apply.  If anyone makes a claim about something very very special and perhaps unheard of by science, then frankly, the evidence of same needs to be better than a one off youtube video or a cool story.

And that all seems to work very well for me.

What's your approach, and why not give a really good example that shows why you posted the observation, so we can better understand what improvements you are suggesting...?

This is what I mean.  We are so out to "prove" right or wrong, emperically or otherwise, that we forget about the joy and capacity to build in depth conversations that need not necessarily be based upon perfect conditions.  Virtually all conversations I see between people, with the exception of long form debates on YouTube between various intellectuals, are incredibly surface level and politically correct.  We are afraid to venture into the wilderness of the known and the unknown with our own faculty and tool alongside one another under the requirement of perfection.

[8th_wall]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Is your mind set on that thought? 

I am not afraid to say what comes naturally in the face of the inability of those who hear me to suspend judgement and come along for the ride for the fun of it.

I've noticed that it is a natural aspect of communication to make theoretic presupposition appear as fact.  One shouldn't read fact and criticise, one should read possibility/theory and reason.

If one's wish is to go along for the ride of reason with one's fellow then one must suspend one's own inclination, demonstrate understanding, and then use reason as a guide toward mutual understanding.  Providing opinion, observation or by passing comment all contribute to dry dry conversation to my mind. 

[8th_wall]

Once one's mind is made up about a thing it becomes perfect in one's world view and one's mind tends to close. (I don't believe this. It is a choice to not take anything else into consideration. And sometimes the final acceptance isn't perfect, it is simply accepting that this is what it is) 

1.  Of course, however the choice to not continue listening to the reason of one's fellow doesn't exempt one from taking up the banner and reasoning in their place, as apposed to passing critique or observation.  If one is so astute at passing judgement then certainly one should be able to reason further along the same lines as one's fellow.

I feel this is a hindrance on captivating dialogue, cutting short one's opportunity to see what reasoning developed more subtle notions of the topic at hand.  (Just because i choose not to listen further doesn't mean i am happy with the scenario all it means is that I have accepted this as the best one...doesn't mean it is then perfect one...and just because I don't entertain more info might be cause the guy /girl giving the info drones on and on and I am tired... Or the info offered doesn't improve the situation. Then of course you have to look at the flipside ....just because you feel the info you are adding to my pool of knowledge is worth something doesn't mean it is...could be your perception.)

Perhaps it is not the intent to add to any pool of knowledge but merely to test the ability of one's fellow human to suspend the concept of "perfection unto reality", that is, one's own observation or critique as the bottom line, and to instead "make reasonable" what one sees as unreasonable.

it better to take a side and be right or to take none and further one's knack of reasoning?  "Agreeing" with people, in this way of thinking, is taking sides. (No it doesn't, just because I agree to your point doesn't mean I accept it as true. Means I understand your reasoning and respect your findings. So I agree to agree with your findings...not accept it as truth)  And I can see your It is not one's own reason that derived conclusion.  And said conclusion is not necessarily complete, even though seeming as such.

Well, this is how it should be, to my mind.  Even if one thinks that what one is hearing should be true.  Even if what one is hearing seems virtuous and righteous and holy.  Even if all of one's sense of reason points at truth.  Far better to suspend judgement of truth and test one's reasoning ability step for step.  In this way one develops one's capacity to engage in conversation of things that actually matter as opposed to being a passing member in a crowd clapping along to something that merely seems appealing.

[ChrLzs]

11 hours ago, PsiSeeker said:

This is what I mean.  We are so out to "prove" right or wrong, emperically or otherwise, that we forget about the joy and capacity to build in depth conversations that need not necessarily be based upon perfect conditions.  Virtually all conversations I see between people, with the exception of long form debates on YouTube between various intellectuals, are incredibly surface level and politically correct.  We are afraid to venture into the wilderness of the known and the unknown with our own faculty and tool alongside one another under the requirement of perfection.

You could have just said, "No, I won't give an example", and saved me reading all that pointless waffling in the hope of finding something specific or tangible..  So I shall bow out, and you are welcome to claim that you've proved your point I guess, which I shall crudely simplify as:

"I want to have long conversations about stuff for which there are no specifics".

As I have a life and family and friends to talk to, I shall pass on such 'conversations'.  And if you think I'm missing out on something important because of that attitude, well ..... I'll pop back in a week or two to see what, in terms of useful changes has come out of this discussion...

 

BTW, I hope you are aware of the fact that this is "Unexplained Mysteries".  By definition, that sorta implies the idea is to explain mysteries where possible, so as to identify those that remain unknown/unexplainable.  So being "out to 'prove' right or wrong, emperically {sic} or otherwise" is really not a bad thing.  Nor does it mean "that we forget about the joy"...  That removal of *your* joy is, I suspect, your annoyance that someone dares to provide a mundane, scientifically proven explanation.  Me..? I find great joy in the discoveries that are real, and understanding the immense complexities of the Cosmos, nature and human behaviour.

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, PsiSeeker said:

I am not afraid to say what comes naturally in the face of the inability of those who hear me to suspend judgement and come along for the ride for the fun of it.

Fair enough, but there's a lot of people like that, especially here. 

I was more referring to your opening statement :

Quote

Once one's mind is made up about a thing it becomes perfect in one's world view and one's mind tends to close.  

It seems self defeating? If you've made your mind up about others mindsets, isn't that doing exactly what you say closes minds? 

Quote

I've noticed that it is a natural aspect of communication to make theoretic presupposition appear as fact.  One shouldn't read fact and criticise, one should read possibility/theory and reason.

I think Ricky Gervais put it very well when he said:

I'm all for discussion but in the end opinions bow to facts 

Quote

If one's wish is to go along for the ride of reason with one's fellow then one must suspend one's own inclination, demonstrate understanding, and then use reason as a guide toward mutual understanding.  Providing opinion, observation or by passing comment all contribute to dry dry conversation to my mind. 

There's a line though, where discussion goes from interesting speculation to plain silliness, I feel that line should be respected. 

[Grandpa Greenman]

I don't have cable, I don't do the normal TV news outlets.  Fox News, MSNBC, CNN aren't really news they are entertainment.  The only time I look at CNN, is when there is something going on like a volcano going off and I want to know right away.   I use a lot of different sources like NPR, BBC, when all else fails I just google and see what comes up. You just got weed for bias when you do that.  I like doing research.  If you tell me something, if I am not sure about it I'll look it up.  I'll dig until I know the truth, if it can be known.   Alway look in the comments you be amazed at what I find in the comment section. So can I change my mind when facts warrant it.  But I got to see the facts.  

[LightAngel]

On 9/8/2018 at 6:45 AM, PsiSeeker said:

Once one's mind is made up about a thing 

 

 

 

[8th_wall]

On 8/10/2018 at 7:50 AM, ChrLzs said:

You could have just said, "No, I won't give an example", and saved me reading all that pointless waffling in the hope of finding something specific or tangible..  So I shall bow out, and you are welcome to claim that you've proved your point I guess, which I shall crudely simplify as:

"I want to have long conversations about stuff for which there are no specifics".

As I have a life and family and friends to talk to, I shall pass on such 'conversations'.  And if you think I'm missing out on something important because of that attitude, well ..... I'll pop back in a week or two to see what, in terms of useful changes has come out of this discussion...

 

BTW, I hope you are aware of the fact that this is "Unexplained Mysteries".  By definition, that sorta implies the idea is to explain mysteries where possible, so as to identify those that remain unknown/unexplainable.  So being "out to 'prove' right or wrong, emperically {sic} or otherwise" is really not a bad thing.  Nor does it mean "that we forget about the joy"...  That removal of *your* joy is, I suspect, your annoyance that someone dares to provide a mundane, scientifically proven explanation.  Me..? I find great joy in the discoveries that are real, and understanding the immense complexities of the Cosmos, nature and human behaviour.

I find it problematic that you, and many others, rely on science and empericism in general to the extent that you do, the work done by people orders of magnitude more intelligent than you and others, in order to laud yourself over those trying to express an original thought of their own and to develop it further.  That is, you take the idea of another and defend it in a die hard manner without understanding the mechanism of thought that produces those sorts of facts/results to begin with.  You're incapable of guiding those who are misguided, for example, myself, in your view, to the end of mutual gain and will instead respond in an antagonistic manner or read into my writing as provocative, which it isn't.

The quantitative aspects of conversations or debates, that is, results produced or learned by others, seem to rule over one's own capacity to have interchanges high in quality, that is interchanges that allow for the furthering of future result in relation to the cosmos, human behaviour, aspects of knowledge etc.

Simplifying further, we act is if the knowledge gained is an end unto itself and forget the mechanisms involved in the production of knowledge of that quality and that the point of the acquirement of knowledge isn't so much the accruement of it, or the means to acquire it, but the means to produce it to begin with.  We're quick to attack those we believe to be blatantly deluded in the face of the perfection of previous works, or their high quality.  That is, refined knowledge produced by those orders of magnitude more intelligent than you or I.  How are we supposed to develop our capacities to think more clearly, with one another and by ourselves, if we're susceptible to antagonistic behaviour from people interested in knowledge as an end unto itself and not interested in developing the means to produce it?  In this sense "right and wrong" doesn't matter so much as the ability to derive any result at all, right or wrong or neither. 

A certain detachment needs to be practiced, in my opinion, to the "marvellous spectacle of science" as far as I'm concerned.  Not to bad mouth it, it's just not as great, or a means by which to hold oneself and others in such and such regard, as some might to think.

[8th_wall]

On 8/10/2018 at 7:57 AM, psyche101 said:

Fair enough, but there's a lot of people like that, especially here. 

I was more referring to your opening statement :

It seems self defeating? If you've made your mind up about others mindsets, isn't that doing exactly what you say closes minds? 

I think Ricky Gervais put it very well when he said:

I'm all for discussion but in the end opinions bow to facts 

There's a line though, where discussion goes from interesting speculation to plain silliness, I feel that line should be respected. 

It's my instinct that we don't understand very well where that line is at all in order to respect it to begin with.

Opinion or fact shouldn't stand so highly in the hierarchy of what one values most as far as I'm concerned.

[8th_wall]

On 8/10/2018 at 9:00 AM, Grandpa Greenman said:

I don't have cable, I don't do the normal TV news outlets.  Fox News, MSNBC, CNN aren't really news they are entertainment.  The only time I look at CNN, is when there is something going on like a volcano going off and I want to know right away.   I use a lot of different sources like NPR, BBC, when all else fails I just google and see what comes up. You just got weed for bias when you do that.  I like doing research.  If you tell me something, if I am not sure about it I'll look it up.  I'll dig until I know the truth, if it can be known.   Alway look in the comments you be amazed at what I find in the comment section. So can I change my mind when facts warrant it.  But I got to see the facts.  

A fact tends to be something I forget in a week and essentially useless to my subjective world view as a result.  If I don't find a way to arrive at the fact through my own reasoning, or relate it to my world view somehow, then it's only relevant while I'm experiencing it in the moment and useless to me a week later or forevermore as I never have reason to recall it again.  Facts don't tend to aid my ability to express myself, think clearly, interact meaningfully with others and relate to them or influence them in ways that are meaningful and engaging to them and myself.  It's like picking up a dictionary and checking each other's knowledge of words and critiquing.  What's the point if the desire is exploration of mind/reality.  Treading across ground already trodden.

[8th_wall]

On 8/10/2018 at 5:34 PM, LightAngel said:

 

 

I experience the highs and lows of mind and the stillness of the waters too.  In releasing the mind of thought it shouldn't be shunned as a result in my opinion.  I find overthinking, underthinking, aroundthinking quite fun and natural.  I try to practice more detachment though, that is, experience thought and feeling fully however not in such a way that it weighs upon my soul or lifts it into the heavens.

[XenoFish]

The closed mind doesn't allow any information that will change their perceptions/beliefs, they have a rigid opinion or a narrow outlook (religious fanatics come to mind). A narrow minded is similar to the closed mind, they have no desire to entertain the ideas and thoughts of others, who are no in agreement with the individuals beliefs. The open mind belongs to the skeptics, those who fact check and draw conclusions based on current information, but are willing to change their view if something new comes along. We skeptics are often called closed minded, however a lot of us have done our research and come to the most likely conclusion. If something actually factual was shown to prove the supernatural/paranormal existed without poorly done studies, then I'm quite sure a lot of us would change our minds. I would. 

[8th_wall]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

The closed mind doesn't allow any information that will change their perceptions/beliefs, they have a rigid opinion or a narrow outlook (religious fanatics come to mind). A narrow minded is similar to the closed mind, they have no desire to entertain the ideas and thoughts of others, who are no in agreement with the individuals beliefs. The open mind belongs to the skeptics, those who fact check and draw conclusions based on current information, but are willing to change their view if something new comes along. We skeptics are often called closed minded, however a lot of us have done our research and come to the most likely conclusion. If something actually factual was shown to prove the supernatural/paranormal existed without poorly done studies, then I'm quite sure a lot of us would change our minds. I would. 

Would you not say that the mind becomes closed in the face of facts and carefully done research that proves another's point of view false?  Even if it is emperically and rationally proven that one is correct, is this not an aspect of a mind that had become closed?  Or will tend along certain lines of thought as approached to others?

I'm highly skeptical of astrology or numerology for example, however, for the fun of it, I'll suspend everything I know to be so and so and try and see how it might be possible to hold outlandish seeming beliefs in the face of "that which should be obvious".

My instinct tells me that those who have thoroughly done their research and are inclined to shun those who "are obviously incorrect" display closed minds.  That is, they have seen what is "factual" or "perfect" as I claim and display closed mindedness as a result without perhaps realising it.

For me I will tend to side with the skeptic, however when faced with astrology, deminology and so forth I am still inclined to take it seriously outside of evidence or even in the case of evidence that proves it incorrect.  That is, I don't automatically assume that there isn't anything I can gain from that which isn't correct to the rational or emperically minded.

I feel that there is much to gain from those who are foolish in their quest for asserting the truth just as there is much to gain from those geniuses who shape the physical reality.

That is, even those who are ultimate incorrect still arrived at their incorrectness by some mechanism of mind that I believe I can learn from.  I feel that some are too quick to label others as stupid.  My teenage years was filled with that sort of nonsense. 

[+ouija ouija]

^ ^ THIS!

[psyche101]

On 8/16/2018 at 6:07 PM, PsiSeeker said:

It's my instinct that we don't understand very well where that line is at all in order to respect it to begin with.

I think that predictability and repetition upon demand draws a pretty clear line there myself. 

On 8/16/2018 at 6:07 PM, PsiSeeker said:

Opinion or fact shouldn't stand so highly in the hierarchy of what one values most as far as I'm concerned.

Fact is what it is, it doesn't care what one's opinion of it is, it just does what it does. 

[XenoFish]

On 8/17/2018 at 7:23 AM, PsiSeeker said:

Would you not say that the mind becomes closed in the face of facts and carefully done research that proves another's point of view false?  Even if it is emperically and rationally proven that one is correct, is this not an aspect of a mind that had become closed?  Or will tend along certain lines of thought as approached to others?

What's more valuable Facts or Beliefs? Beliefs have their place but facts are always true.

I'm highly skeptical of astrology or numerology for example, however, for the fun of it, I'll suspend everything I know to be so and so and try and see how it might be possible to hold outlandish seeming beliefs in the face of "that which should be obvious".

Good for you. 

My instinct tells me that those who have thoroughly done their research and are inclined to shun those who "are obviously incorrect" display closed minds.  That is, they have seen what is "factual" or "perfect" as I claim and display closed mindedness as a result without perhaps realising it.

Those who have done the research come to the more logical and reasonable conclusion based on knowledge and fact. It's only deemed closed minded by those who lack facts are have ignorance toward a subject. 

For me I will tend to side with the skeptic, however when faced with astrology, deminology and so forth I am still inclined to take it seriously outside of evidence or even in the case of evidence that proves it incorrect.  That is, I don't automatically assume that there isn't anything I can gain from that which isn't correct to the rational or emperically minded.

Knowledge is one thing, accepting things as fact when there is zero evidence to support them, that's irrational. 

I feel that there is much to gain from those who are foolish in their quest for asserting the truth just as there is much to gain from those geniuses who shape the physical reality.

That is, even those who are ultimate incorrect still arrived at their incorrectness by some mechanism of mind that I believe I can learn from.  I feel that some are too quick to label others as stupid.  My teenage years was filled with that sort of nonsense. 

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

 

[8th_wall]

On 8/20/2018 at 2:11 PM, psyche101 said:

I think that predictability and repetition upon demand draws a pretty clear line there myself. 

Perhaps I'm being a bit too pedantic.

 I speak from myself however it's imaginable the problems one runs into in the general population when trying to hold that mentality in general will lead to many grey areas.

What I'm suggesting is to find a means to make interaction meaningful even in the face of repetition and demand.  There are instances where one is forced to interact outside of one's wishes.  If one is capable of making this interchange meaningful by some means then it it seems like it would fair far better.  This has been my experience so far at least. 

On 8/20/2018 at 2:11 PM, psyche101 said:

Fact is what it is, it doesn't care what one's opinion of it is, it just does what it does. 

What I'm suggesting is that the fact doesn't have as much weight as does the ability to derive it.  The ability to derive a fact will not land upon a fact everytime it seeks to derive it.  As such, being wrong, deriving incorrect fact, or wrong opinion or whatever, serves the ability to derive useful facts, even if wrong.  As such we shouldn't hold those who have strongly opposing views from us in such contempt.  That is, proving someone wrong via a fact in a way that dismisses them only serves to stop them from trying to determine fact for themselves.

I have the opinion that very few people are capable of developing their ability to think due to being slammed when they express their findings.  Some of us are so hungry for information though that even in the face absolute adversity we don't balk in the slightest. 

[8th_wall]

On 8/21/2018 at 9:23 AM, XenoFish said:

Would you not say that the mind becomes closed in the face of facts and carefully done research that proves another's point of view false?  Even if it is emperically and rationally proven that one is correct, is this not an aspect of a mind that had become closed?  Or will tend along certain lines of thought as approached to others?

What's more valuable Facts or Beliefs? Beliefs have their place but facts are always true.

 

Regardless of whether facts are true.  A fact held as truth still smells of belief.  Belief in the trueness of the fact.  Belief in the fact is the same as belief in anything else with the caveat that the true belief projects into reality best.  ("True" reality, whatever that means.)

More important than fact or belief is the ability to arrive at either and the development of that ability as far as I can see.

On 8/21/2018 at 9:23 AM, XenoFish said:

I'm highly skeptical of astrology or numerology for example, however, for the fun of it, I'll suspend everything I know to be so and so and try and see how it might be possible to hold outlandish seeming beliefs in the face of "that which should be obvious".

Good for you. 

My instinct tells me that those who have thoroughly done their research and are inclined to shun those who "are obviously incorrect" display closed minds.  That is, they have seen what is "factual" or "perfect" as I claim and display closed mindedness as a result without perhaps realising it.

Those who have done the research come to the more logical and reasonable conclusion based on knowledge and fact. It's only deemed closed minded by those who lack facts are have ignorance toward a subject. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For me I will tend to side with the skeptic, however when faced with astrology, deminology and so forth I am still inclined to take it seriously outside of evidence or even in the case of evidence that proves it incorrect.  That is, I don't automatically assume that there isn't anything I can gain from that which isn't correct to the rational or emperically minded.

Knowledge is one thing, accepting things as fact when there is zero evidence to support them, that's irrational. 

I feel that there is much to gain from those who are foolish in their quest for asserting the truth just as there is much to gain from those geniuses who shape the physical reality.

That is, even those who are ultimate incorrect still arrived at their incorrectness by some mechanism of mind that I believe I can learn from.  I feel that some are too quick to label others as stupid.  My teenage years was filled with that sort of nonsense. 

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

I'm not speaking in behalf of the ignorant.  I'm speaking on behalf of the learned dealing with the ignorant.  The typical behaviour expressed to those who are "deluded" or "wishful thinkers" or whatever.  And not for the benefit of the ignorant.  For the benefit of the ignorant and the learned.  There are better ways to interact with one another than the way that is typical when disagreement arises to my eyes.  I'm speaking particularly of the hyper logical, lack of emotional display, super rational die hard truth is law types.  I can speak from that stand point because I am one.

Psychology is a new field.  It's an observation of mine that those who are knowledgeable are often just as deluded as those they claim ignorance for.

What's important isn't what's discovered.  It's the ability to discover it.  If someone claims a certain thing I want to know what caused them to reach that stand point.  In a sincere way.

The reason is due to the Backfire Effect and the Dunning Kruger illusory superiority effect.

You're one to speak of those things that are a waste of time.  What's a waste of time is being in a vicious cycle of these two psychological phenomena with someone.  The efficacy of a fact to the end of corrective behaviour to the end of truth is low.  As a result the approach to interchanges need to change between the ignorant and the learned.  There's no way to avoid these interchanges as we are an incredibly social species.

Those capable of seeing clearly should become better guides to those who aren't.

[XenoFish]

Anything to pump your ego huh psiseeker.

[8th_wall]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Anything to pump your ego huh psiseeker.

Not at all.  I am myself short of this ideal, but I can see it.

Believe me, I have had a rough upbringing dealing with illogical irrational brings who argue purely from emotion and not from reason.

It's a serious test of my own resolve to remain clear headed aiming toward "what is good and true" when on the receiving end of depressive rage and bipolar mania.  There's not much you can tell me about dealing with the nonsensical.

These are merely my observations.

As far as ego is concerned, it is "fact" based upon "evidence" that I become extremely good at what I apply myself to in a relative sense.  That information is useless to me in an ego boost sense since I'm "being normal" as far as I'm concerned.  Once I start thinking highly of myself for being normal is when I lose the ability to be normal and my own ability to accomplish anything meaningful suffers.

Anything to be selfish.  For in selfishness I can be my best self and, in turn, be the best member of the circles I operate within.

[XenoFish]

I knew another PsiSeeker once. Different forum. He was a cool guy. To the point, had some smarts about him. I think he was Canadian. Saw the same name on UM and thought it was him, you're not him.