“An Essay Concerning the Possibility of a Unified Theory of Counseling” —Counseling and Family Therapy Scholarship Review | Regis University

Counseling and Family Therapy Scholarship Review | Regis University
— Read on epublications.regis.edu/cftsr/

Suicidal Tendencies

youtu.be/LoF_a0-7xVQ

How we used to deal with mental health ourselves. 🤘🏾👨🏽‍🚀 😁

It’s all right here. Everything why, and everything since.

You got a listen to the words and the whole song. And you pretty much got all of mental health and what’s happening right now in one song. Lol. 

At least for the youth. And then by extension, society.

The Meaning and Demeaning of Mental Health

The following is an extract from an interview with Mallory Gothelf, mental health advocate and creator of ‘The Infinite Project‘. “It’s difficult not…

The Meaning and Demeaning of Mental Health

———- Like.

But I like to put it in terms more of what I choose to apply to myself. The meaning remains the same. I got enough reasons to beat myself up; it’s not that these reasons go away or I change the meaning that they have in my life. Kind of on the contrary, I just don’t allow them to make authoritarian enforcement upon what I am, but allow them to be whatever they are or were.

Of course, though, what meaning is had is ultimately determined by the person. Somehow, though, sometimes we are doing a disservice ideologically when we reduce a persons experience to meaning making. Sometimes it can be a change in ones view upon the situation. But most people just go by the ideological equation for identity, which in our moment, is based on meaning.

Philosophy of Reference, part 1.

references check mark sign concept

I have brought this up in another post somewhere. Please put your answers in the comments.

I am going to give you the thoughts coming up right now …

In philosophy, why is knowledge based in referring to what past authors said or wrote?

For example, what is the value, say, for what purpose am I referring to another author if I came up with cause as evidencing four aspects which constitute the Being of a thing?

All Beings have a form. What the reason is for this thing to exist is the form that it is. The cause of a Being is its formal sense.

All Beings have, or are, matter. What the reason is for this thing to exist is that it matters; the material which constitutes a thing is the cause of its existence. The tree is the cause of the table, for example.  Or electricity is the cause of the internet.  Of course, because there is plenty of material, the essential Being of a thing can have various material causes.  The cause of a universal thing, a Being, matters, or is derived from material.

All Beings have, or are, motion. What we as philosophers generally know as an efficient cause.  What the reason is for this thing to exist is the motion that it evidences.  The agency which is the thing is that which it does, the motion it is involved with.

All Beings have and end, or what we know as telos, in the ancient Greek.  What the reason is for a thing to exist is that it evidences its own end, or as I say here and there, parameter. 

All of these causes interrelate and confirm one another to arrive at modern idealism.

— Cid Nate.

Now, a significant modern philosophical question is:  With what purpose I am involved in comparing, say, what I came up with here out of the blue, through sheer observation and its resultant description, to Aristotle’s causes?

(comment now, please)

I wonder, because I have to ask myself why a reference to someone from a long time ago is required to give my ideas credence and validity?

What am I doing when I reference someone who is dead?

I can understand referencing someone who is alive because we are involved with global capitalism. But to place all knowledge on a level field to say that the books of the dead people are equal to the comments from people living — I ponder if that is a valid proposition. But then moreso, what exactly is the purpose I am involved with in understanding that knowledge in this way? 

My formulation, the reason I come upon with goes to that in early human history:

Somehow, words had more substance somehow.  Somehow, if I quote an ancient Greek meaning, what I am writing gains more substance.  And, I imagine, that the reason why I believe and feel ancient philosophers have more substance contained in their words is because (again) those people were closer to some essential truth of existence due to their Being closer to the arrival of consciousness from our of prehuman and prehistorical “non-consciousness”.  

Which is to say, then, that the universe was informing them and their terms to a more true situation of Being. 

Why would this be the case?

(please comment :|)

Another Solution

Resolution

I have been wanting to write a post for this blog, and Ive finally gotten a round to it.

roundtuit

The name of this bog is Resolution.  I cannot help but wonder if I was invited to post here because I have another solution.

To what?  you might ask?

I suppose we can start by looking at the word in various ways.

Resolve.

Solution.

I like the idea that in resolution we are re-solving something.  Just as with a camera, or a digital picture, the resolution refers to different ways that algorithm is solving for the problem, and as we know from any digital editor, a there are hundreds if not thousands of ways to resolve any situation, that is, to bring it into resolution.

The fundamental philosophical issue that arises before us in modernity is whether there was ever a moment when we were not modern.  This is the question…

View original post 1,019 more words

Academics discover tans

I would just like to highlight the absolute insanity of this abstract from Shades of Privilege: The Relationship Between Skin Color and Political …

Academics discover tans

——- in addition to the insanity pointed out by the commentary in this link, The paper itself is so utterly ridiculous because in essence it’s arguing that if we stay in whiteness, then the gradations of skin color will become important to political and economic security.

It is a misconstrual, a misunderstanding, A missed-application of the critical idea of whiteness, to suggest conflict and opposition based on the shade of one’s skinis the way to defeat whiteness.

For race itself goes to the very heart of critical theory. And does not necessarily equate to the shade of one’s skin. For sure, the shade of one skin is what whiteness as a constructrelies upon for its authority and enactment of power through systems. But racial consciousness Is the The manner which by race becomes noticed for what it is, and thus the absolute authority of whiteness becomes compromised. It is not that people of whatever shade of skin will now lose their political and economic security, but that the very fear that is invested in such an idea is what we’re battling against. This is to say, the ideological consciousness which promotes skin color (and other racial identifiers, such as hair) as a predictor and designator of what is good and right and valuable is what racial consciousness rejects.