preventing reverse psychology in the future

Barnstar rotante di psicologia

Barnstar rotante di psicologia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Preventing reverse psychology in the future

>

The future is unknown. The future is uncertain.

>
The future is where all the power is. Those who are creative propose a future which the masses may either resist or champion. If a proposed future sharply divides the masses in to champions and protesters, then that proposed future attracts a huge amount of energy and attention, dominating the emerging conversations about what may be.
>
The conceiving of the future arises in language. Resisting a particular future is still a conceiving of that future.
reverse psychology
Resisting a proposed future is somewhat like resisting the idea of a pink elephant. One cannot resist an idea without first conceiving it. The resisting by the masses of a particular future also draws energy to the future possibility that is being resisted- nourishing it, cultivating it, adding attention and power and authority and reality to it.
reverse psychology
Reverse psychology must therefore be eliminated. Reverse psychology must be fiercely protested. Reverse psychology must be resisted. Reverse psychology must be condemned. Reverse psychology must be stripped of it’s irresistible power. If we do not severely punish anyone who even mentions reverse psychology, then we are doomed to futility and helplessness and victimhood.
reverse psychology negativity
Reverse psychology has no future whatsoever. In the future, I will not think about reserve psychology right now. Right now, I will make special emphasis on not thinking about reverse psychology in the future.
>
Rebel. It does not really matter what you rebel against, but just rebel.
>
Resist protesting. Protest resisting.
reverse psychology
The future does not even exist yet. Furthermore, at no time in the future will it ever be the future. The future is a fantasy, a joke, a lie, a concoction, a creative pretense, a myth.
>
That is why we must save humanity from the future. We must prevent the future from dominating our lives and our thoughts and our behaviors and our reverse psychology.
reverse psychology
However, we must not save humanity from the future right now. It is simply too soon for such a drastic measure. We should wait a while first. We can always save humanity from the future later.
>
Finally, the activity of saving humanity from procrastination must eventually be eliminated, resisted, condemned, cultivated, nourished, postponed, prevented, and championed. Reverse psychology must never be allowed to influence us, at least not yet. In conclusion, there is no such thing as denial.
selena gomez loves haters

Tags: , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “preventing reverse psychology in the future”

  1. preventing reverse psychology in the future « power of language … « About Psychology Says:

    [...] original post here: preventing reverse psychology in the future « power of language … June 5th, 2012 | Tags: future, future-which, MASSES, may-either, Power, resist-or-champion, [...]

  2. Controlling Complications with Simpler Opinions | So Far From Heaven Says:

    [...] should wait a while first. We can always save humanity from the future later.”   http://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/preventing-reverse-psychology-in-the-future/    Me:  “So, what to do today.  Any suggestions, Ms. Shiva?”   Shiva:  [...]

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      I highly recommend breathing. Bathing is less essential, but often favorable. If you have already made promises to do something, that is another place to begin to experience momentum already. If you have not made any promises yet (plans), then whatever you do, please do not have too much fun. Having too much fun is the source of having too much fun and must therefore be avoided with the utmost caution.

  3. Sam Hampton Says:

    Three YouTube videos EVERY Atheist, with a sense of humor, should watch

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Hi Sam,

      For reference, I think of atheism as a merely developmental stage. To me, to say “I do not believe in God” is similar to saying “I do not believe in mythology” or even “I do not believe in foreign languages or graduate-school calculus or anything that I do not personally understand.”

      God is a term similar to the word nature. Do you believe in nature? Are you an antibioligist or an antitheist?

      We can say “everything is created by nature as an instrument of nature.” You could translate that in to Sanskrit and then translate the Sanskrit back in to English as “everything is created by God as an instrument of God.”

      Then some rebellious, arrogant, naive folks who do not understand what language is can get in to an argument or altercation about whether or not nature exists or God exists or whatever. The word “God” derives from an ancient Sanskrit word relating to Indra, which can be translated in to English as “divinity” or “that which forms all forms.”

      I do not believe in the existence of arrogant naivete, which I explore further in these blog items:

      http://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/why-i-do-not-believe-in-the-existence-of-atheists/

      http://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/for-those-who-argue-over-the-existence-of-language-god-or-atheism/

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      I think to note that the issue is typically of how precisely people wish to speak. For instance, I could say that this is an electronic device or that it is a computer or that it is a Toshiba laptop with the following specifications….

      All of those are valid wordings. To use the word God or the word nature or the words “that which creates forms” also are all valid instances of linguistic phenomena.

      Which phrasing is functionally best to use depends on the audience. The word “God” may be commonly recognized among elementary school kids. The word “divinity” may be quite “foreign” to them, even though they may have heard it or know how to spell it.

      So, one might say “God” to one person, “divinity” to another, “nature” to another, and “that which creates forms” to another. Which one is the right one? To ask which one is the right one- unless joking insincerely- demonstrating a fundamental misconception of the nature of language. There is no inherently right way to describe this electronic computational device.

      Much of the reaction by atheists against certain usages of the word God is that atheists may recognize that there is no inherently right way to use words, exclusive of all others. There is no inherently right way to live, exclusive of all others.

      We could say that the fundamental inclusiveness of God is the original meaning of the words integrity, wholeness, holiness, and catholicism. However, there is also no inherently right way to use the words catholicism, holiness, wholeness, or integrity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 291 other followers

%d bloggers like this: