jueves, 28 de febrero de 2013

The blows symbolic (verbal)

Words can hit as much or more than a clenched fist. There 'kickers' and boys that never hit.

The old statement that says "barking dog does not bite" metaphor has value, that is, the most important use we give is not to explain the triviality of these animals can not use their jaws for two things at once, (if it barks does not bite and can not bark while biting), but to mean, for example, that when a person threatens, (barks), you do not intend to comply with what is expressed in the threat, (biting).

But we see something even more important: when the dog is barking occupied the mouth can not bite, which we might think that the above statement says something more forceful metaphorical: when someone threat can not carry out his threat.

Does this mean that the threat was perhaps sterile, safe, ineffective? No, it probably was.

Although exhausted his menacing threat pure energy, aggressive this message have effect on threatened.

Indeed, with the exception of psychopaths, we are all upset when we realize that we are being threatened.

Our understanding is important because if the message comes in an unfamiliar language may not meet its goal of punishing.

So when anyone makes a threat usually lose the energy to do it, (who says "I'll give you a blow 'may run out propinarlo and strength to carry out his threat), however the intention aggressor is quite efficient because the threatened feel bad as if he had been beaten: angry, afraid, worried, thereby 'hit' symbolic (in words, orally), meets a target, causing discomfort or greater to that resulting physically applied the coup.

Conclusion: There are "kickers" that never hit.

Teatro humorístico (aunque no tanto) con Guillermo Francella y Cecilia Milone.
Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): Los golpes simbólicos (verbales)
(Este es el Artículo Nº 1.824)

We hardly think of the money

Because we associate the concept money, compare and even merge in many ways, we hardly think of it.

Thinking is an unpopular task because it is too frustrating. Someone can spend hours thinking without reaching any conclusions to justify the effort.

Remember always been considered a normal function, easy, useful, until someone thought to think about memory. Thinking about memory is less useful to remember.

The worst thing is to think about how the thought. In this task fail ten eleven "thinkers".

But our mood is the most valuable and therefore the brain accommodates ideas so that if the conclusion was sad, uncomfortable or depressing, then is altered enough to not hurt the thinker.

The computer is very new to mankind and his main task is to accumulate, process and deliver information.

Along with it are developing Sciences documentation, because not only is it necessary to file this function would be unnecessary if we could not find what we keep. The function 'closed' can never be replaced by the function "hide".

The librarians have been working for centuries on the subject and have come to find that our thought categories considered very prácticias: books can be saved considering 1) the author, 2) title, 3) the subject; 4) the date of edition.

Therefore, in order to find a particular book, we have to create at least four.

Now I'm just apparently these issues related to thought and conceptual categories.

Our associates thought, compares and merges up ideas. How do we think, save and understand some ideas?

Because we associate the concept money, compare and even merge in many ways, we hardly think of it.

Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): Nos cuesta pensar en el dinero.
(Este es el Artículo Nº 1.805)

miércoles, 27 de febrero de 2013

Free will of lovers

The scary infatuation so uncontrollable. Those who love you will find out that the book might not exist.

In my belief, free will (1) there is but an illusion shared by most of the world's population, making it slightly less than in an unquestionable truth.

Something similar happened when everyone said that our planet is in the center of the universe, because well, they trust in what they see they have no choice but to conclude that "everything revolves around us."

Those who rely on certain perceptions are able to say something like "if I do not believe it ', but then have to recognize that the Earth is not the center of anything, ... but just keep saying, casually, that the sun 'leaves' in the east, instead of saying that "the sun began to see him in the east."

We could say that fear is what puts us in doubt that popular belief in free will. Believing that "we do what we feel like" only works when we are not cowering in terror of something uncontrollable, such as an illness, an accident, an earthquake.

As life often present itself in a rather monotonous and not feel fear, almost everything is predictable, and we think that something unexpected could happen to us.

In this context it is easy to assume that peaceful take autonomous decisions, we control our lives, that "love is power," but when we are devastated by the circumstances, with our free will "seems to us to pray to an imaginary character" desperately asking us out gracefully frightening scenario.

So wonderful infatuation can provoke this fear that questions whether the Almighty really will have free will.

Those who fall in love know that they are determined to obey an uncontrollable feeling.

Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): El libre albedrío de los enamorados.
(Este es el Artículo Nº 1.823)

Money defines the individuality

When we pay with money we are making, confirming, corroborating our radical separation (no connection), who charges us.

Who gets what I produce, they have to pay me or work with me so I can keep producing?

When psychoanalysis works as a therapeutic procedure, requires that the fees paid analysand to the analyst.

Why have to pay?

A superficial answer would say, (and rightly so), you have to pay because the analyst is someone who has personal and family expenses, like anyone else.

A more elaborate, more inaccessible ... but why not more valuable, you can say that the money goes to the patient's hands to the hands of the analyst has the symbolic power as well so you are both clear on who are the psychological difficulties that are being analyzed.

In other words: when the patient out of pocket money to pay professional fees, being aware that psychological problems are yours, only yours and nobody else's.

Meanwhile, when the analyst is receiving that money is being aware that psychological problems are not yours, is being aware that you should not get involved in the situation of the analysand, even eager to help you feel like a brother.

Repeat the initial question: "Who gets what I produce, they have to pay me or work with me so I can continue to produce?"

As we saw in the analytical treatment, money separates people: the limited each to its strict individuality.

When a man pays a prostitute is becoming clear that he does not love her and when she takes the money is becoming clear that she does not love.

Very different would be if she had sex with his friend because both enjoy indulging each other.

Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): El dinero define las individualidades.
(Este es el Artículo Nº 1.804)