User talk:Frater5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page!

You are invited to leave me messages and corrections.
Please, be polite and assume good intent.

If I do not respond to your message or I delete it, it is probably because you violated one or both these rules. Otherwise, let 'er rip!

Archives
2006 (May) 2006 (November)

Contents 1 The Glyph 2 The Turning Tide 3 Clinical Psych Phrase 4 Smile 5 Religious symbols 6 Gakyil / gankyil image 7 WikiProject Furry 8 Safia Aoude 9 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Little essays.jpg 10 Fair use rationale for Image:AL cover.gif 11 Fair use rationale for Image:Bookoflies(crowley).jpg 12 Fair use rationale for Image:Bookofthoth.jpg

[edit] The Glyph

Hi, I'm very new at this, and i'm not too positive if i'm posting this the right way. Anyways, in your own words, let 'er rip. I visited your userpage, and admired that you enjoy psychology, as do I.

I'm very young, but curious to your contribution of the "alchemical glyph" on the protoscience of alchemy. Mainly, my real question is, what is your position on the myth of "Alchemy"?. I would love to hear your insight. It doesn't make sense how something so intricate could just be a dreamer's dream. Something with so much air about it can not be just tossed aside as unreal. -Jean

I think the most fascinating thing in psychology is the humans mind to become infatuated when gaining knowledge. We tend to think the answer we have is "the universal answer". For instance, in the middle ages when the Earth was presumed to be flat or when it was considered foolish to suggest the moon was actually covered with craters.

A modern example of a universal answer is the theory of the big bang. By the way, feel free to correct me anywhere. Be tedious=]

If you are interested in Wikipedia, a good first step is to create an account. In that way, I could reply to you on your own userpage.

Regarding alchemy, I'm not exactly sure what it is you'd like to know. I can't claim any unique insight since I'm not a scholar or practitioner of alchemy. I can say that I admire it for the essential concept that it is possible to undergo internal change that can allow one to become more connected to the spiritual nature of the universe. This is a profound way of thinking and quite against the orthodox church, which insists that salvation is only possible via faith and external "good works". Do I think there's actually something to the complexity of the system itself? Frankly, no. The human mind is an incredible thing, and with enough passion and intelligence, it is possible to create an amazingly complex system, even when it isn't based on a single thing other than imagination. This doesn't mean that the system is necessarily useless...spiritual transformation merely requires intent and consistent effort, and almost any system working towards this end will do, alchemy included.

You are right that humans are intrinsically obsessed with "knowing the answers". The Big Bang might not quite square with believing in a flat earth...the physical evidence for it is compelling. But it does compare in that we are always curious about the way things are, how they work, and what we can do with them. This is why Wikipedia is as huge as it is...people love to know! —Frater5 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Turning Tide

I've been a practicing Thelemite for a year now, but am deeply concerned with the fascist policies of the US, and indeed governments around the globe. Do you think the tide will be turning soon, and how do you think all of this fits into the "Aeon of Horus" and so forth? --72.226.218.165 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a big question. I am not much of a prognosticator, so I can't really say what will happen with any given government. My general opinion is that the meta-direction of humanity, viewed at the scale of centuries (and even decades), shows a steady increase towards individual freedom. With this inevitable movement comes the equally inevitable reaction. The War of the Aeon is not against governments per se, but against Old Aeon beliefs and values from which spring oppression and tyranny. Personally, I believe that the recent election of the numerous progressives this midterm is a sign that people are waking up from the neoconservative dream...while no political party is perfect, they are a definite movement back towards sanity after the nightmare of the GOP-ruled congress. I'm not sure if this is the answer you are looking for, but in these regards I'm certainly no wiser than yourself. –Frater5 (talk/con) 04:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clinical Psych Phrase

Hi,

I wanted to touch base with you and apologize if my tone has been too harsh. I feel strongly about this issue, but I don't mean to offend anyone who is editing with good intent and I do think that is what you have been doing.

When I came to your User page to leave that message I saw you are a fan of Positive Psychology - me too. What a breath of fresh air after decades of DSM classifications and mysterious diagnosis arising from strange theoretical orientations ("I wanted to WHAT with my mother?"). I had the opportunity to assist Nathaniel Branden twice a week for over a year back in early 90's when he ran two groups based solely on developing positives. I wouldn't have missed that for anything. Branden knew Fritz Perlz and was fond of many of his therapuetic techniques (but not so much the underlying theories). Steve 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind comments and the smile. While you have seemed aggressive, I wouldn't say harshly so. In cases like this, it is usually possible to find a good solution. If I were you, I'd start a section on the talk page with your perspective and an invitation for suggestions. I'm a reasonable guy, but others aren't, and you are treading on an area of practice that the field has been working very hard to protect. Because of this, you will fare much better, I believe, with an invitational stance, rather than a provocative one.

Re: Positive Psychology...I am indeed a big fan. I am in the camp that thinks that PosPsy shouldn't try to develop as an independent orientation of practice, but should infuse itself within existing practice models. I believe that as it does, it will begin to chip away at the pathology-model of mental health. Even at CIIS, which is a progressive school, I still hear wacky psychoanalytic theories taken seriously. Hopefully, the data will eventually be so overwhelming that psychologists will have to jettison past-oriented insight-focused therapies, especially those built upon Freud's fictional drive theory. I just don't understand how any educated therapist can take any of that as sound science...it boggles my mind.

I agree that it would be a mistake to try to make PosPsy into it's own orientation. It is more fundamental - like something that arises out of a good theory of human nature. The ability to define pathology and treat it is a good thing - the big mistake was seeing humans as ONLY pathology and never recognizing that one could work on positives. Amazing that it took so many decades! I've found valuable things in almost every theoretical orientation, even Freud (I like his and his daughter's list of defenses - but I don't agree with the structure, theory or the ineffectual treatment techniques). The funny thing is that the DSM will end being a great help by giving a common agreement between orientations. They disagree on cause and on treatment, but are forced to see the similarities in symptom sets. That means the research data will force people to chuck technologies that don't work and to question theories that contradict the data. Those orientations that can't or won't integrate PosPsy will loose credibility and support. Rational, intelligent orientations will take to it like a duck to water. Steve 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for the kind comment. That's doing wiki right. –Frater5 (talk/con) 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

[edit] Religious symbols

Your enthusiasm in the religious symbols area is commendable, but you should have directed your efforts more towards Wikimedia Commons than English Wikipedia since WP:NOT says that "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" (which means that your Gallery of religious symbols is much more appropriate to be merged into the existing Commons gallery Commons:Religious symbols than to be a separate Wikipedia article, as I already said on its talk page), and the symbols themselves which you have uploaded are highly appropriate to be uploaded to Commons (since they are under free licenses, and not dependent on English-language text).

Also, many of your SVG files have a huge "Polka Dot Pattern" embedded within them which adds absolutely no functionality to those files. (See how I just now reduced Image:Ichthus2.svg from 97,391 bytes to 1,021 bytes!) AnonMoos 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's weird about the morey pattern...I don't see it on my computer. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong...

In the next few days I will upload some of my original images to Commons, which I agree I should have done in the first place.

–Frater5 (talk/con) 02:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The pattern wasn't used in your file -- it didn't affect the image display, it just bloated your files with 95k of useless data. The article is now nominated for deletion (not by me), as I knew it eventually would be: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of religious symbols -- AnonMoos 22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gakyil / gankyil image

Thank you very much for uploading an image on the phurba page, i was wondering if you may be able to progress some images for gankyil and namkha?
Blessings
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Furry

[edit] Safia Aoude

In order to defeat the "deletionists" would you be prepared to keep Safia Aoude's article?Phase4 11:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Little essays.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Little essays.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AL cover.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:AL cover.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bookoflies(crowley).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bookoflies(crowley).jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bookofthoth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bookofthoth.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)