Sceptics and the Buddha, a thread for everyone else :)

[epepke]

Buddhism is a very strange religion, because it invites followers to discard any notions at all if those notions do not stand up to personal observation.

This might lead one to conclude prima facie that skepticism would be welcome, but a casual observation of these threads shows a degree of foofaraw that is inconsistent with the idea.

The 4 noble truths:
1) There is suffering.
2) Suffering has a beginning.
3) Suffering has an end.
4) There is a path out of suffering.

Even before we can even approach the notion that these are true, let alone noble, we have to be able to understand what suffering is, and when we try to do that, it rolls around on the table like a glob of mercury.

I'll bring up what I did before. I was hospitalized for acute pancreatitis. It involved a great deal of what I think is appropriately called "suffering." I assert that Buddhism is pretty much useless for this, unless the Buddhists are planting opium poppies, a derivative of which at least took the edge off.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This might lead one to conclude prima facie that skepticism would be welcome, but a casual observation of these threads shows a degree of foofaraw that is inconsistent with the idea.

Huh, it depends who you talk to, like everything else. Dont you think?

 

[epepke]

Lets say that its simply a different perspective from where what we call "the world" is presented to what appears to be "the observer".

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I have a number of fundamentally different perspectives on the universe.

To say that something is different, however, tells me nothing. If you ask me what I'm eating, and I say "something different from an apple," all that it tells you is that it isn't an apple.

Nothing "magical" nor "mystical" here.

You know, I really which people would stop saying this as if it meant something. Skepticism is a way of dealing with claims. Just because a claim isn't mystical doesn't mean that it is not amenable to skepticism. The claim that ulcer patients should adopt bland, cream-based diets was not mystical either, but it turned out to be wrong.

I do see some magic here, but it's on the order of conjuring and consists largely of verbal misdirection to give a false sense of profundity.

Do you care to explain a bit better what you are saying? Being awake, in the sense Buddhism talks about it, is to make available to the ego a different point of view regarding the world. We are talking about something like the sensation of eating "enchiladas" in a Mexican restaurant (in Mexico City). You can certainly talk about it with someone who has not tasted them. But all you can say about it is wrong, its not something you can explain with words. Not something you can share the knowledge about. He have to eat them in order to know what is their taste.

Again with the metaphors. This falls flat for a number of reasons. First of all, we can agree what an enchilada is. Second, we can study the behavior of someone who eats an enchilada. He might, for instance, say "Ow!" and reach for a drink. Third, we can study the physiological effects of the chemicals in an enchilada, noting for instance that oleoresin capsicum when applied to tissues stimulates mucus production and also stimulates the production of substance P.

This is all a lot better than anything anyone has ever told me about "awakeness."

Epepke, you are a rational being.

Not particularly, though reason is a skill that I have.

We most share a common frame of reference in order to talk about it. Have you tasted Mexican enchiladas in Mexico City? Because, if you have not, how can you discuss about them?

Well, as I did above, for starters.

But you're still missing a terribly important point. How can you possibly know that the experience is common? Maybe I can say that I have tasted enchiladas in a restaurant in Mexico City. But maybe you went to the place with the "gringo" menu, and I went to a food stand run by someone from Jalisco? (Which is more likely, anyway, because enchiladas in Mexico are considered snacks and aren't common in sit-down restaurants).

You're just assuming that Buddhism brings one to this poorly specified state, and that it's substantially similar from person to person. But that's a bald claim. You're also assuming that no non-Buddhist (such as, for instance, me) can possibly talk about it. That's another bald claim. There's no way that you can know these things without attempting to talk about it.

From where I stand, you haven't even tried. It seems to me a lot as if you are just dancing around the question in order avoid talking about it. That's behavior that I've seen a lot from Buddhists.

I've also seen it in other places. The Emperor's subjects' talking about how beautiful his clothes are, or people in a restaurant talking as conossieurs of the subtle flavors in different waters (which Penn and Teller filled from the same garden hose just minutes before), or how alien abductees get together to share their experiences, or Breatharians. The name of the game is if you play the game and I play the game, then everything's OK, but if you don't play the game, then all hell breaks loose.

How can I know that it's more than that?

 

[epepke]

Huh, it depends who you talk to, like everything else.

Well, if someone (such as a Catholic) tells me that thier religion has dogma that may not be questioned, and I question it, and they get bent out of shape, then it's at least consistent with their advertising.

Dont you think?

Yes, I do, and I do it rather well, thank you.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Its nice to talk in a purely rational way about this. Still, if I say that "Awakeness" is a non-logical subject, why do you diminish the answer? It is an answer, even if it is certainly not what you are looking for (or think you are looking for).

If I perceive you correctly, you are a man of theories. So, let me try this:

Suppose we humans share a common frame of reference, called "human consciousness" that depicts certain universe. In order to keep this simple lets say that that universe is composed by objects and watched by observers (an implicit dualist vision of some sort).

Now, suppose that someone discovered that there is another perspective, one that shows a universe that its completely different from the "objects and observers" model.

This is really what is all about. You can reach a "state of mind" (called with the terms you like the more) that is different from your current one. And no, sorry, you cant talk about it if you have not been "there".

Now, I see that you get carried away with words very soon. I share your feeling. Language have limitations you know. So, if you are looking for reasons then sorry, I cant help you.

(Ironically, the end of logical reasoning leads directly to this "awakened state", but I guess just for some individuals).

 

[Ryokan]

How can I know that it's more than that?

You could try it

 

[epepke]

Its nice to talk in a purely rational way about this. Still, if I say that "Awakeness" is a non-logical subject, why do you diminish the answer? It is an answer, even if it is certainly not what you are looking for (or think you are looking for).

Well, I think it's because the time/answer ratio has been pretty high.

And I'm not "diminishing" the answer, depending on what you mean by "diminishing." I'm trying to noodge people into refining their answers. It seems to be working pretty well, so I'm not going to stop.

Suppose we humans share a common frame of reference, called "human consciousness" that depicts certain universe. In order to keep this simple lets say that that universe is composed by objects and watched by observers (an implicit dualist vision of some sort).

Sure. I'll even go further. I'll say that it's a model that evolution has provided us with, that seems to work well enough in the environment that humans normally occupy. So let's call this the "evolved perception." "Human consciousness" is a bit of a poorly defined term.

Now, suppose that someone discovered that there is another perspective, one that shows a universe that its completely different from the "objects and observers" model.

Sure, but I've pointed out that I personally have access not only to such a perspective, but more than one of them.

This is really what is all about. You can reach a "state of mind" (called with the terms you like the more) that is different from your current one. And no, sorry, you cant talk about it if you have not been "there".

Since I already have more than one such states of mind, readily available to me, how can I interpret your "there"? It could correspond with one of mine, in which case I'd have to be able to figure out which one. Or it could be none of them. Or it could be either a more primitive or even a more sophisticated version of one of them.

The only way I know of to settle the matter it to discuss it.

 

[epepke]

You could try it

How would that help?

If I tried it, then either something would happen or nothing would happen. If nothing happened, I'm pretty sure that people would just tell me that I somehow did it wrong, although in a sufficiently unspecified way that it wouldn't tell me anything. If something happened, then I would still face the problem of determining whether what happened was the same as or different from what people claim happened.

And in any event, it's just plain good skeptical sense to describe the protocol before performing the experiment, because otherwise you just get mush.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Sure. I'll even go further. I'll say that it's a model that evolution has provided us with, that seems to work well enough in the environment that humans normally occupy. So let's call this the "evolved perception." "Human consciousness" is a bit of a poorly defined term.

Agreed, yours is way better. I have lost "the touch", I abandoned rational discussions some time ago. But in fact, it is interesting that you selected that terminology. I wrote a paper on the subject, its in spanish, but I might translate it to english. It talks about perception and how it is related to language. It addresses some of the things we are discussing in here and concludes, exactly like you, that our "evolved perception" works just fine.

Sure, but I've pointed out that I personally have access not only to such a perspective, but more than one of them.

Please illustrate me. Which perspectives are you talking about?

Since I already have more than one such states of mind, readily available to me, how can I interpret your "there"?

Ah, easy. First of all, I can tell you that you have not been "there". How can I know that? Because I can tell, by the way they talk, who has been "there". Sorry for the crude metaphor, but just a sighted person knows if someone else can also see, or its just a blind person pretending.

It could correspond with one of mine, in which case I'd have to be able to figure out which one. Or it could be none of them. Or it could be either a more primitive or even a more sophisticated version of one of them.

The only way I know of to settle the matter it to discuss it.

Fair enough. Lets see how far we can go.

 

[epepke]

Please illustrate me. Which perspectives are you talking about?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

But, of course, we have to communicate in language. What do you know about the language of modern physics? If I used the words "amplitude" or "entanglement" or "event" or "realism," what would they mean to you? That's the language that I'm most comfortable with.

Or we could do it in the language that you're most comfortable with, but I think that you'd have to start by asking questions, just as I've been asking questions of Buddhists.

Ah, easy. First of all, I can tell you that you have not been "there". How can I know that? Because I can tell, by the way they talk, who has been "there". Sorry for the crude metaphor, but just a sighted person knows if someone else can also see, or its just a blind person pretending.

Well, at least you're getting the idea that it is possible to conclude something from their behavior.

But if you don't explain it, then it remains a totally ideosyncratic perception, only available to you.

So what about how I talk leads you to that conclusion? As far as I can tell, I have been exercising a specific skill. Would I somehow lose that skill if I had been "there"?

Nota bene: I don't have any ego invested in this. I don't particually want to prove that I am a Buddha or something. I say this now in order to forestall some of the nastier things that Buddhists have said to me. I'm just exploring the territory.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

That would be fantastic. Sadly, unless someone discover a way to "transfer" sensations, we are stuck in language.

But, of course, we have to communicate in language. What do you know about the language of modern physics? If I used the words "amplitude" or "entanglement" or "event" or "realism," what would they mean to you? That's the language that I'm most comfortable with.

Ah, exactly. Well, I like it, in fact I like it very much because, in a way, theoretical physics is one of those fields in which our current "evolved language" becomes useless. New concepts and ways of thinking have emerged from it. Still, I doubt we can use the entaglement, gauge symmetries or the up and down quarks to discuss this subject. ;-)

Or we could do it in the language that you're most comfortable with, but I think that you'd have to start by asking questions, just as I've been asking questions of Buddhists.

Well, I dislike metaphysics, and I certainly do not use any kind of religious words, so we can use just "normal" language if you want.

Well, at least you're getting the idea that it is possible to conclude something from their behavior.

But if you don't explain it, then it remains a totally ideosyncratic perception, only available to you.

Ok, agreed. Yes. I believe there is an objective way to determine if someone has seen or not. Some Zen teachers are really good at it. I dont know how to explain it, so I will attempt it and see what happens.

Suppose I tell you about this "place" in which you cease to see a world of objects. In fact, the very ego that was seeing that world dissapears. Do you believe this is possible? You can call it a delusion, its fine. We are just pretending that such mental state can exist.

Now, how can I know if somebody has being aware of that state and not merely saying that he has been there? Here is the tricky part. But its not tricky at all. You see. When you are "there", you see things in a way so crude, so intense that you cant even believe that you were discussing the subject in the first place.

Its like if all your previous experiences were like a pianissimo and now you are seeing everything for the very first time, a fortissimo so strong that all your logical doubts are imediately destroyed.

After such a powerful experience you cant see the world the way you did before. Everything you believed in was demolished by this raw experience.

So, answering. How can I know if someone has been there? well, because he cant discuss anymore.

I know, I know, a very weak argument. Still I would like to know what do you think about it.

So what about how I talk leads you to that conclusion? As far as I can tell, I have been exercising a specific skill. Would I somehow lose that skill if I had been "there"?

Yes. You would see how futile is it. Oh, but that doesnt make it less fun, at least after sometime ;-)

Nota bene: I don't have any ego invested in this. I don't particually want to prove that I am a Buddha or something. I say this now in order to forestall some of the nastier things that Buddhists have said to me. I'm just exploring the territory.

Good. Im not interested in making a Buddha from you. So we can be all in peace.

 

[yrreg]

Please check what you don't believe in...

So that people like myself will know what you don't believe in when you do write to the credit of or in defense of or to explain Buddhism, here is a list of items you can check as not believing in, in any way you understand them to mean and don't believe in them:

[ ] 1. Sentient beings have always existed and should head for Nirvana, the definitively final kind.

[ ] 2. Non-self, not-self, no-self

[ ] 3. Karma

[ ] 4. Rebirth

[ ] 5. Nirvana

[ ] 6. Anything else you don't believe in, which Buddhists with intelligence and literacy propound in Tibet, Burma, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Japan, and other lands in the Far East where Buddhism is the or a traditional religion. [Please add to the list.]

​

In this manner I will not be thinking that you harbor notions which I can't accept in you for being Westerners with a sound education in science and in critical clear thinking.

Is that a strawman? No, just so that I will know what you do believe in or more properly not believe in re Buddhism, and what I should think about you insofar as every thinker thinks also about another thinking person, without emotional downgrading but just academically -- namely as a subject of interest.

---------------

Anyway, everyone and together:

Om Mani Padme Hum -- Om Mani Padme Hum -- Om Mani Padme Hum​

​

Yrreg

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There are many types of Buddhism, and even if you find two individuals that follow the same type, I dont see they would need to agree (just a personal idea, I really dont know).

Do you feel the need to attack a special kind of Buddhism? or just the whole bunch, in a general sense? If the last is true then you are in trouble. If you are planning to critique some branch then I might be able to help. Theravada? Tibetan?

Oh, btw, If anything, I would be considered as an outsider of Zen tradition, but in reality I couldnt care less about titles or denominations ;-)

 

[epepke]

Ah, exactly. Well, I like it, in fact I like it very much because, in a way, theoretical physics is one of those fields in which our current "evolved language" becomes useless. New concepts and ways of thinking have emerged from it. Still, I doubt we can use the entaglement, gauge symmetries or the up and down quarks to discuss this subject. ;-)

I bring it up because one of the ways that I can perceive the universe is in terms of tangled amplitudes.

Of course, this might be totally different from your "there." But it doesn't have any "objects" in it, or any "self."

Suppose I tell you about this "place" in which you cease to see a world of objects. In fact, the very ego that was seeing that world dissapears. Do you believe this is possible? You can call it a delusion, its fine. We are just pretending that such mental state can exist.

Oh, I don't think it's impossible; I just think it's kind of trivial. Objects and the self are fairly naive concepts anyway, but I think most reasonably intelligent people figure this out around 6th grade or so.

Its like if all your previous experiences were like a pianissimo and now you are seeing everything for the very first time, a fortissimo so strong that all your logical doubts are imediately destroyed.

After such a powerful experience you cant see the world the way you did before. Everything you believed in was demolished by this raw experience.

So, basically, it's like an ice pick in the forehead? I can see staggering around for a couple of hours, but I don't see the value in diminishing one's capabilities, unless someone somehow wants to do that.

So, answering. How can I know if someone has been there? well, because he cant discuss anymore.

I know, I know, a very weak argument. Still I would like to know what do you think about it.

Not much, really.

ETA: We could probably get further quicker if you told me exactly what I believe in that would be "demolished."

 

[yrreg]

Thanks for your reaction, please...

Thanks for your reaction, good friend.

But please don't forget to tell me what you don't believe in, in Buddhism, in the list I have deviced, and add to the list. Just what you yourself personally don't believe in.

I just love to know how many things in Buddhism people who do believe in Buddhism don't believe in.

Certainly that is a possible task of self-inquiry.


Or is that too personal a curiosity to address from yours truly?

All in the name of academic curiosity and also in view of everything lawful and informative in the name of skeptical criticism.

Thanks again for your reaction.


Yrreg

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I bring it up because one of the ways that I can perceive the universe is in terms of tangled amplitudes. Of course, this might be totally different from your "there." But it doesn't have any "objects" in it, or any "self."

Very interesting! I would love to read more about it. Tangled amplitudes. I even like the term. Tell me whats in your mind.

Oh, I don't think it's impossible; I just think it's kind of trivial. Objects and the self are fairly naive concepts anyway, but I think most reasonably intelligent people figure this out around 6th grade or so.

My first guess is that you dont live close to "common humans". Maybe you live in the dorm of a physics university? ;-) Seriously. I dont know how much you have traveled, but AFAIK, I have seen people seriously believing that the world is what they see, and worst, many of them are still lost in some kind of religious imaginery, with demons, ghosts, reencarnations and gods everywhere.

For those individuals, specially the ones who suffer from depression or stress, or those who simply hate their lifes, Buddhism is a path, and it can lead them to forget their previous problems. Nope, it doesnt work always, in fact, I have seen several "buddhists" (zen students for example) that simply cant leave their demons behind.

So, basically, it's like an ice pick in the forehead? I can see staggering around for a couple of hours, but I don't see the value in diminishing one's capabilities, unless someone somehow wants to do that.

Yes! Oh, and maybe I was not clear about this. Reaching "that" is not at all important, or necessary. It is interesting, and it can give you an astonishingly different perspective regarding what we are and what we believe, but thats about it.

ETA: We could probably get further quicker if you told me exactly what I believe in that would be "demolished."

Well, I dont think Buddhism has anything to say about your Tangled Amplitudes. But Im still very interested to read something about them

 

[Dancing David]

This is probably true, but it comes across to me as a bit evasive. The question on the table, or at least one of them, is what exactly does the claim that Buddhist practice is good for eliminating suffering (it's usually stated that way, but I'll accept "reducing" rather than "eliminating" provisionally) actually means. So we have to ask the question of what "suffering" means in the context of Buddhism.

I thought that had been discussed endlessly, but to recap: there are desires and there are fears. The goal of the eightfold path is to reduce the clinging to desire and the attachment to the fears. They still exist but thier impact can be lessened.

That many people without sheltered lives practice Buddhism is, on the face of it, no more telling than the fact that a lot of people with cancer use homeopathy, eat wheat grass shakes, or inject laetrille.

I quite agree but I felt that I have read many places in these threads that you felt biddhism is only for those who come from affluent lifes, I am often mistaken.

This is presumptuous of you and also, I think, wrong. I, for one, have not led a sheltered life, and for only about two years of my life could have been considered affluent. Right now, I'm poor, but at least I can afford refrigeration, which has not always been true. As I've pointed out before, I've also taught residents of a mental hospital.

Again you have made repeated assertions that led to me making the statement you are responding to, it was my impression(perhaps a mistaken one) that you were asserting that buddhism applies only to those who come from affluent society.

Well, now, just my personal experience would lead me to agree with you. First of all, I found that my adolescent angst, at least, turned out to involve desires that actually were attainable. Also, I have to say that any unattainable desires are the least of my worries.

And again, you may be very different from other people, I have met many who suffer from thier attachment to desire and are in an unending quest to fill thier voids. Of those who are dominated by thier fears.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thanks for your reaction, good friend.

But please don't forget to tell me what you don't believe in, in Buddhism, in the list I have deviced, and add to the list. Just what you yourself personally don't believe in.

I just love to know how many things in Buddhism people who do believe in Buddhism don't believe in.

Certainly that is a possible task of self-inquiry.


Or is that too personal a curiosity to address from yours truly?

All in the name of academic curiosity and also in view of everything lawful and informative in the name of skeptical criticism.

Thanks again for your reaction.


Yrreg

Well, you didnt address this to me, so Im not sure if it was for me. Please excuse me if this is not the case. That said, I can resume my "buddhism" very easily:

What can I say aboth the Buddha that he would have liked?

You Are The Buddha

Yes, you yrreg (or anyone else)

How is that he knew about this things?

Well, because being awakened to its own nature he couldnt do anything but SEE.

Buddha means "AWAKENED"

Nothing about gods, nothing about pretended knowledge nor traditions. Nothing about tryint to answer with deep truths to impossible questions.

This is "my" Buddhism

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

To say it in another way: Buddhism is about seeing our own nature before our thinking clouds it. Its a revealing experience, pretty interesting, but certainly not for everyone. If you are curious to try, good. If you are not, good!

 

[Dancing David]

I am certain, D David, that if you were mindful of your right thought and right speech, you would not accuse me of that repertory of gripes against me.

If you disagree with my perspective of your behaviors that is fine. I never said that I behaved as a buddhist at all times, I am not always goaling for perfection. I am often trying to explore where people are by pushing and pulling.

As I stated , against the advice of the buddha.

They are not a list of gripes, as I undersatnd the word, they are a list of [ercieved behavior. Which as in all perception might and often is mistaken.

Citing is not necessary unless you are of the mind like that of newly literate folks, who think that if it's in the papers it must be true and serious.

It is the custom of this forum, when stating that 'xi usualy acccompanies the quality of bloog' that one may be asked to provide some evidence that xi does in fact accompany bloog. The lack of citation would seem to promote the idea that perhaps you make things up based upon very brief encounters or wholly from the imagination. It is a common part of debate upon this forum, to try to substantiate ones beliefs, it should not be a blind appeal to authority.

Where citation really serves a useful pertinent and decisive purpose I do give references to the web. See my messages on two quotes allegedly from Einstein endorsing Buddhism, in that thread on Facts and Fictions on Buddhism.

My meaning is that ypou have ascribed mant things to buddhism without stating where you recieved that impression, the first rule of a sceptic is to not blindly accept the statements of another but to examine the evidence and draw personal conclusions.
It has been very hard to derive the core of many of your statements because you do not state where and how you base your statements.

You think that I don't attend to your answers; but I do, only I don't accept them. Just because you have the true believers syndrome does not mean that I have to take your answers hook, line, and sinker. When I don't accept an answer usually I prefer to keep a polite silence.

If you feel that I am a true believer than you have understood nothing, which is inevitable since your opinion is based upon the same limited information that my beliefs about you are based upon. I believe nothing , dear one, I doubt everything, I trust my senses no farther than the limits of my perception. I especialy question my own beliefs on a regualr basis. Someday we should perhaps discuss how my beliefs have changed regards political conservatism and Xianity. They both used to make me foam at the mouth and shout invectives.

In general of this forum, if you feel that there is an error in logic and reasoning then it is gleefully pointed out. And I appreciate it myself, I like to learn about how other people think and reason, I usualy learn a lot that way. So can you point out the errors in my logic , or are you just here to debate yourself?

Besides, I notice that you are prone to selective reading. Go over that message of mine here mentioning pharmaceutics and surgery, and in your right mind and right speech you will have to admit that you are purposely engaging in selective reading.

I could do so and have done so, you are the one who suggested that those with amantal illness should seek surgery. Does that mean that you believe that those who live with schizpphrenia should have lobotomies?

I think even Epepke here observes that his messages or thoughts are not read or attended to as he would want them to be -- and he used to help folks in the mental asylum.

Unlike you Epepke answers questions and responds to post, something I have not seen you do. I do read and attend to his posts and we engage is discussion and debate.

Tell you what, D David, go over all my messages here in JREF forum, and see if any one of your charges is based on genuine factually justifiable grounds.

What purpose would it serve?
If I list every question that I have posed to you, and that you have not answered, then shall I just ask them again so you can ignore them again. I will gladly ask you them again if you will repond, as I said I truely enjoy learning how other people think, I learn from the debate. So If I ask the questions again, shall you answer them.

But remember, we are here to also have fun, not to get all worked up as to lose our equanimity.

If you read on the buddhist teaching of equanimity then you would now that it also means trying to understand the perspective of other and being open to discussion. Have you sjown that?

So, Om Mani Padme Hum.

One of the reasons I feel you don't read or consider my posts, I have already stated I am very sceptical of many of the ritual/magic beliefs of buddhism, I feel mantras are empty, one could recite any phrase to attain the effect of the chanting. I am very sceptical of the purported power of phrases. My preference is for 'Owata loo niam'.

One more thing, if it is any consolation to you, I look up my warning link here to find out whether any has been issued to me from the authorities here. So far none. Do you see any?

Did I say you has?

HMM< overactive imagination?

But I have seen three warnings issued to a poster here who is also seemingly engaged in the work of moderator of sorts. Here, see this image upload below.




I am having fun here; and as soon as it's no longer fun, I will have to bid adieu to all you Buddhists here, and remove that descriptive label of Resident Buddhist Critic, that is when I am truly proven to be very wrong in everything I nurse in critical skepticism about Buddhism and its Western enthusiasts.


Yrreg

I am also very sceptical of many buddhist beliefs and practices, and have stated so very often.

I shall have to detach from my joy that you have actualy started to communicate with me, I would like to learn from your thoughts and reasoning, but they often are hard to follow as you don't defend or explain them.

QUOTE BY YRREG:
[quoute]
If the problems are due to neuro-chemistry and organism idiosyncrasy, then you should repair to pharmaceutics and surgery, or seek asylum in a mental safehouse.
[/quote]
Enlightenment and remove my ignorance Yrreg, what 'surgery' are you suggesting here?
Surely not the abusive and barbaric lobotomy?
Please allow me to know that you don't advocate surgery for the treatment of major depression, bipolar direder, schizophrenia and or anxiety. I am not sure what you meant by surgery.

And you should know that in the USA there are no 'mental safe house', there is no asylum anymore, if there was my job would be very easy because very one could go to the hospital or get drug rehab.