Psycho Attitude Quotes

I'm resourceful," Price is saying. "I'm creative, I'm young, unscrupulous, highly motivate, highly skilled. In essence what I'm saying is that society cannot afford to lose me. I'm an asset

Happiness is a mental habit, a mental attitude, and if it is not learned and practiced in the present it is never experienced. It cannot be made contingent upon solving some external problem. When one problem is solved, another appears to take its place. Life is a series of problems. If you are to be happy at all, you must be happy - period! Not happy "because of".

Most folks got Id and Ego living on different floors in their head’s house, in different rooms, and they’ve locked all the doors between them, and nailed sheets of plywood over that, because they think they’re, like, sworn enemies that can’t hang together. Ro thought the whole subconscious/conscious issue had something to do with why I am the way I am. She said I have the neurological condition synesthesia out the ass, with all kinds of cross regions of my brain talking to each other. Old witch was always psychoanalyzing me (as in she was the psycho and I was being analyzed). She said my Id and Ego are best buds, they don’t just live on the same floor, they share a bed. I’m cool with that. Frees up space for other stuff. I take off, tune out, and do what I do best. Kill.

Psychologist H. L. Hollingworth said that happiness requires problems, plus a mental attitude that is ready to meet distress with action toward a solution.

A positive virtue—the real thing—is not something that you do. It is something that you are. A genuinely kindly person and his kindness are a single unit; they are one. A really gentle person cannot help acting with kindness any more than a cruel person can help but act with cruelty. Do not be afraid to face the existence of negative attitudes and emotions within you. Simply see that they are there. Remember, they are not the real you; they are acquired negativities. Once you really see this you will go to work on yourself in a new way.

Our present thinking, our mental habits, our attitudes towards past experiences, and our attitudes towards the future - all have an influence upon old recorded [neuronal] engrams. The old can be changed, modified, replaced, by our present thinking.

Une des grandes erreurs que l'on peut commettre est de croire que les bonnes manières ne sont que l'expression d'une pensée heureuse. Les bonnes manières peuvent l'expression d'un large éventail d'attitudes. Voici le but essentiel de la civilisation : exprimer les choses de façon élégante et non pas agressive. Une de ces errances est le mouvement naturiste, rousseauiste des années soixante où l'on disait: "Pourquoi ne pas dire tout simplement ce que l'on pense? " La civilisation ne peut exister sans quelques contraintes. Si nous suivions toutes nos impulsions, nous nous entretuerions.

Psycho-compulsion is therefore not just about instilling people with a so-called correct employability mindset. It is a mechanism for penalising deviation from what it defines as the right set of attitudes and behaviours. ‘What psycho-compulsion therefore attempts to do is silence alternative discourses to the neoliberal myth that you are to blame for your unemployment,’ said Friedli. ‘At the same time, it undermines and erodes alternative frameworks around which people can come together in solidarity to act against the social causes of worklessness.’ In short, psycho-compulsion not only pathologises and punishes a claimant’s dissent, it depoliticises the causes of joblessness (which discourages collective action), and it does so by resuscitating Margaret Thatcher’s earlier myth that unemployment can be reduced to character deficiencies.

Even if you’re not as illiberal as Nietzsche, you might be worried if Nietzsche’s right that certain kinds of traditional moral values are incompatible with the existence of people like Beethoven. That’s the strong psychological [psycho-physiological] claim he makes – that you can’t really be a creative genius like Beethoven and take morality seriously. I think even good old democratic egalitarian liberals could worry a bit about that, if it were true. It’s a very striking and pessimistic challenge, because the liberal post-Enlightenment vision is that we can have our liberal democratic egalitarian ethos and everyone will be able to flourish. Nietzsche thinks there’s a profound tension between the values that traditional morality holds up and the conditions necessary for creative genius. [...] The illiberal attitudes and the elitism was really central to the way he looked at things. The suffering of mankind at large was not a significant ethical concern in his view, it was largely a matter of indifference – in fact it was to be welcomed because there’s nothing better than a good dose of suffering to get the creative juices flowing.

Physical relaxation, when practiced daily, brings about an accompanying mental relaxation and a relaxed attitude that enables us to better consciously control our automatic mechanism. Physical relaxation also, in itself, has a powerful influence in dehypnotizing us from negative attitudes and reaction patterns.

Our interaction with nature is clearly constrained and directed by such foundational ethical precepts as mercy, moderation, and gratitude, which, when systematically understood and applied, result in ecological health. But ethical precepts refer ultimately to human nature, and therefore ecological health is rooted in psychological health. From this deep level perspective, environmental degradation is less a resource problem than an attitude problem. This psycho-ecological approach toward preserving and enhancing environmental health is explored by considering some pertinent aspects of Islamic socio-intellectual history and their relevance for re-articulating and re-applying authentic Islamic environmental ethical values in today’s world.

Post-hoc rationalization The action-reflex obtained by propaganda is only a beginning, a point of departure; it will develop harmoniously only if there is an organization in which (and thanks to which) the proselyte becomes militant. Without organization, psychological incitement leads to excesses and deviation of action in the very course of its development. Through organization, the proselyte receives an overwhelming impulse that makes him act with the whole of his being. He is actually transformed into a religious man in the psycho-sociological sense of the term; justice enters into the action he performs because of the organization of which he is a part. Thus his action is integrated into a group of conforming actions. Not only does such integration seem to be the principal aim of all propaganda today; it Is also what makes the effect of propaganda endure. For action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action. He is what one calls "committed" — which is certainly what the Communist party anticipates, for example, and what the Nazis accomplished. The man who has acted in accordance with the existing propaganda has taken his place in society. From then on he has enemies. Often he has broken with his milieu or his family; he may be compromised. He is forced to accept the new milieu and the new friends that propaganda makes for him. Often he has committed an act reprehensible by traditional moral standards and has disturbed a certain urder. He needs a justification for this — and he gets more deeply involved by repeating the act in order to prove that it was just.

We now know that not only does the past influence the present, but that the present clearly influences the past. In other words, we are not doomed or damned by the past. Because we did have unhappy childhood experiences and traumas that left engrams behind does not mean that we are at the mercy of these engrams, or that our patterns of behavior are “set,” predetermined and unchangeable. Our present thinking, our present mental habits, our attitudes toward past experiences, and our attitudes toward the future—all have an influence upon old recorded engrams. The old can be changed, modified, replaced, by our present thinking.

These observations led me into a new career. Some years ago I became convinced that the people who consult a plastic surgeon need more than surgery and that some of them do not need surgery at all. If I were to treat these people as patients, as a whole person rather than as merely a nose, ear, mouth, arm, or leg, I needed to be in a position to give them something more. I needed to be able to show them how to obtain a spiritual face-lift, how to remove emotional scars, how to change their attitudes and thoughts as well as their physical appearance.

I have found that one of the commonest causes of unhappiness among my patients is that they are attempting to live their lives on the deferred payment plan. They do not live, or enjoy life now, but wait for some future event or occurrence. They will be happy when they get married, when they get a better job, when they get the house paid for, when they get the children through college, when they have completed some task or won some victory. Invariably, they are disappointed. Happiness is a mental habit, a mental attitude, and if it is not learned and practiced in the present it is never experienced. It cannot be made contingent upon solving some external problem. When one problem is solved, another appears to take its place. Life is a series of problems. If you are to be happy at all, you must be happy—period! Not happy “because of.

Writing on this subject in 1904 Freud gave the reason for our unshakable conviction of freedom of choice. He remarked that it is far stronger with trivial decisions than with weighty ones; with the latter we commonly feel that our inner nature compels us, that we really have no alternative. With the former, however, for example the arbitrary choice of a number, we discern no motive and therefore feel it is an uncaused act on the part of our ego. If we now subject the example to a psycho-analysis we discover that the choice has after all been determined, but this time the motive is an unconscious one. We actually leave the matter to be decided by our unconscious mind and then claim the credit for the outcome. If unconscious motivation is taken into account, therefore, the rule of determinism is of general validity. Freud never wavered in this attitude and all his researches into the workings of the mind are entirely based on a belief in a regular chain of mental events. He would have endorsed the views of the great anthropologist Tylor that 'the history of mankind is part and parcel of the history of Nature, that our thoughts, will and actions accord with laws as definite as those which govern the motion of the waves'. When enumerating the essential elements of psycho-analytical theory, in 1924, he included 'the thorough-going meaningfulness and determinism of even the apparently most obscure and arbitrary mental phenomena.

Many writers have ignored these points and have treated the whole story as an example of the gullibility of the Arabs of that time. This is hardly historical; the Moslems, who were far ahead of the West in science and philosophy then, had known about hashish for centuries before Hassan (perhaps since the Stone Age) and were not to be taken in by any confusion between a mere administration of that drug and a genuinely transcendental experience. Hassan, we must assume, anticipated modern psycho-pharmacology in realizing that control of set and setting – i.e., environment and the mental attitude of the subject – was necessary to provoke a true “peak” or “psychedelic” experience.

It is possible that some people have been so mauled by life in this society that such a semi-suicide is the best alternative to real suicide for them. Curiously, a hell of a lot of M.D.s are using the same logic in relentlessly over-prescribing tranquilizers, many of which are quite habit forming (e.g., Librium) and some of which (e.g. Tofranil), are definitely linked with impotence according to psycho-pharmacologists. As Dr. Lawrence Kolb told a Congressional committee way back in 1925, “There is . . . a certain type of shrinking neurotic individual who can’t meet the demands of life, is afraid to meet people, has anxieties and fears, who if they took small amounts of narcotics – and I have examined quite a few of them – would be better and more efficient people than they would be without it.” Dr. Kolb also described two physicians who were opiate addicts and practiced successfully until they managed to “kick the habit,” after which they became hopeless problems to themselves and their families. “These two physicians that I am talking about didn’t get cured," Dr. Kolb said scornfully, “they should have had it (the drug) forever, because it (the cure) would not mean anything but an insane asylum for them, and they were doing a pretty good job of work as physicians when they were on the drug and regularly taking it.” American society has ignored Dr. Kolb’s pragmatic approach for decades and has struggled heroically to get all these lost souls off their depressant drugs. Or has it? The “war against heroin” continues; but in New York, the state has abandoned the hope of real “cure” and is satisfied just to get the junkies off an addicting drug it has made illegal – heroin – and onto an equally addicting drug it has made legal – methadone; and in the nation at large, prescriptions for central nervous system depressants are said to run into the tens of millions every year. The official attitude, by default, now appears to be, “If you can’t bear our society without being half-asleep, let us at least control which drug you choose to be half-asleep on.” This is not a formula for a non-addicted nation. It is a face-saving game to allow those bureaucrats whom William S. Burroughs calls “control addicts” to continue to believe that they are, by God, controlling everybody they want to control.

Not for Fun, Why so Hilarious? [Part 2] If someone wants to shut your mouth, you have every right to show him your middle finger; If someone wants to rag you, you have every right to show him your rage; If someone wants to spy you, you have every right to hack him; If someone wants to fake you, you have every right to flirt with him; If someone wants to rank you, you have every right to prank him; If someone wants to question you, you have every right to irritate him with your answers; If someone wants to know your value, you have every right to reveal his worth; If someone wants to call you a psycho, you have every right to shock him with your treatment; If someone wants to test you, you have every right to prepare him for your exam; If someone wants to spoil you, you have every right to damage him; If someone wants to stop you, you have every right to hit him; If someone wants to flop you, you have every right to spoof him; If someone wants to touch you, you have every right to hunt him; If someone wants to bar you, you have every right to crush him; If someone wants you to beg, you have every right to toss him; If someone wants you to wait, you have every right to waste his time; If someone wants you to be silent, you have every right to test his patience; ‘Indian Shakespeare

Not for Fun, Why so Hilarious? [Part 1] If someone wants to shut your mouth, you have every right to show him your middle finger; If someone wants to rag you, you have every right to show him your rage; If someone wants to spy you, you have every right to hack him; If someone wants to fake you, you have every right to flirt with him; If someone wants to rank you, you have every right to prank him; If someone wants to question you, you have every right to irritate him with your answers; If someone wants to know your value, you have every right to reveal his worth; If someone wants to call you a psycho, you have every right to shock him with your treatment; If someone wants to test you, you have every right to prepare him for your exam; If someone wants to spoil you, you have every right to damage him; If someone wants to stop you, you have every right to hit him; If someone wants to flop you, you have every right to spoof him; If someone wants to touch you, you have every right to hunt him; If someone wants to bar you, you have every right to crush him; If someone wants you to beg, you have every right to toss him; If someone wants you to wait, you have every right to waste his time; If someone wants you to be silent, you have every right to test his patience; ‘Indian Shakespeare