here is an interesting theory----

http://www.iep.utm.edu/sartre-ex/

I found this in that link.

"Sartre’s ontology is explained in his philosophical masterpiece, Being and Nothingness, where he defines two types of reality which lie beyond our conscious experience: the being of the object of consciousness and that of consciousness itself. The object of consciousness exists as “in-itself,” that is, in an independent and non-relational way. However, consciousness is always consciousness “of something,” so it is defined in relation to something else, and it is not possible to grasp it within a conscious experience: it exists as “for-itself.” An essential feature of consciousness is its negative power, by which we can experience “nothingness.” This power is also at work within the self, where it creates an intrinsic lack of self-identity. So the unity of the self is understood as a task for the for-itself rather than as a given"

What I like to do to test if I am with it or in an astral dream-like state, like in Idaho or Montana, is this:

Go into the greengrocer's and steal a jar of dilled pickles. Take it home, drop the entire contents into a recently used and not flushed toilet bowl. Blindfold myself, and reach in with my bare hands. I try to grab all the floaters, and tell without looking if they are a dilled pickle, or a piece of the real McCoy. I don't even rely on auditory clues, like the scream they give out when I sqeeze them to see if juice runs out or not.

(Jesus, this felt good. This sort of talk was screaming to get out of my system. Thanks for the head'soup, Simone.)

There is a school of philosophy, which talks about how other schools of European philosophies don't know each other's teachings, coz they can't read each other's languages.

So this Sartre-thing, it is a straing outgrowth from Cogito Ergo Sum, which is in Latin, but was uttered by a Frenchman. A German philosopher would probably have yammered on about the "Jew in you" as the one root of all fattening food. A Russian one would have gone on how killing the rich is not a sin even by the bible. A Chinese one, about how teeming is so very different from what the Teamsters do.

But aside from the tasteless jokes, Sartre was brilliant, I have never seen this. My point used to be that I could never think of what I am thinking of at any moment. Impossible.

Sartre's is cooler, coz it can be explained. Mine sounds like some complaint by some cat who can't catch his own tail. But do the exercise, and you'll see.

Sartre's is also better than mine, coz he points at a theory, whereas mine does not get off the experiential plane.

I really dont forsee my hands ever being in a real toilet, unless my diamonds fall in there. . . in which I would use a fishnet

With regards to the proliferation of psychiatric diagnoses:

There are more and more diagnoses coz there is a growth in the precision of discerning what's wrong with people.

The second thing is that I realized that diseases, incl. psychiatric ones, are not decided from a moral viewopoint. I realised that a disease is such a thing which is hindering the individual from normal funcioning. This is the definition. This is a working definition, not a moral judgment. If the guy is crazy coz he is responsible, he is still crazy; to reverse the craziness, we must first identify what's the cause of his craziness, then try things that work with that particular type of craziness.

There are a number of corollaries growing from this. First, a particular disease is defined as a diseasse with no regard to the origin of it. For instance, the last twenty years has seen more explanations on genetic mutation, occurring in random and unpredictable ways, as the cause of diseases. We can't blame the mutant, or anyone else, as a culprit for the disease to attack the mutant. You see, there is no way you can control genetic mutation, and much less control is possible by the mutant himself, as the mutation happens to him at a very early age (at the moment of the semen fertilizing the ovum).

You could control yourself and stop yourself from becoming and alcoholic or drug addict, but that's awfully hard to do. I used to know a brilliant doctor, who was both alcoholic and dependent on drugs. She was smart, beautiful, yet she was a huge addict. You'd think she would know, and she did, too, but she was unable to break out of the prison of her bad habits, which crept up on her.

Or take the case of the nympho girlfriend I had for twenty-some years. She was convinced she was in any way blameworthy, yet her daughter had hell growing up with her, and this lady friend of mine screwd every guy who asked her. Her addiction was not in her power to stop, and her ability to irrationally rationalize that she was moral and ethical in all her endeavours wouldn't have become so apparent if she hadn't been so hooked on sex. Was she to blame? No, she was not the instigator to have half-hour long orgasms. (I am not kidding.)

Or... what else can I say. For instance, take my wife. And please hurry up.

Most people who are deemed sick are in a state where they can't function normally. This goes for physical conditions as well, not just for personality or psycholgoical diseases.

Ha! but first you'd need to establish a diamond-eating colony or school of fish in the tank.

But who am I to make fun of you, I am the same way. I don't use my hands to fish out my diamonds, though. I can usually tell how long ago the last flush had happened, by the water temperature... which, in turn, I can establish by how my family jewels feel when they first plop down into the dark waters below, over which my ghost levitates.

bragger