OccultForum.org

I have several friends who complain about being tired all the time and then you look at their life and they are eating cereals out of the box, tv on to the side on loud volume, glued in front of the computer, mobile-phone with internet on it 24/7-

My wife watches 'angry screaming housewives' shows everyday and then she doesn't understand why she is grumpy and irritated.,

Is there someway to communicate this to normal people without offending them?

Hello Desecrated,
a good question indeed which I pose to myself quite a lot. When someone is complaining to me about something I usually ask him/her if he's got any idea what might be the cause for his problem and then try to offer some help by telling the person what I would do in his situation. Suprisingly the majority of the people I talk to realize what is causing their pain but I have yet one to see who changes his/her behaviour.

Avoid occult terms. Just tell them a negative environment causes negative reaction, as per cause and effect, and that it's psychology 101.

When talking to people who are not occultists, cant really wax and wane on talking about 'energy' as they'll immediately switch off.

Give them something more concrete they can relate to, i guess. Does that make sense?

Is there someway to communicate this to normal people without offending them?

Generally no. As has been said, most people are aware of why the vast majority of their problems (especially basic day to day stuff like mood or energy levels) exist on some level or another to at least some extent, it's just a question of whether the discomfort it causes on one level or another becomes great enough to build up the motivation to overcome the inertia of simply living with it. Either your friends will grow sick of being tired and start making lifestyle changes or they'll continue to slide along the rut and complain occasionally, it's up to them. Very, very few people are ignorant of the effect of poor diet and lack of exercise in this day and age, it's a lifestyle choice which has come about as a consequence of their upbringing and socio-economic situation. Change has to come from within, from that moment which sparks when the person says "I'm not going to live like this anymore." Until that happens, no amount of overt outside effort is going to help.

What you can do is be a positive example. People don't change purely by osmosis, but we tend to average out around the people we spend time with. If you live a healthy, happy lifestyle and reap the benefits, they're more likely to see those benefits, see that it's achievable and not just something "other people" do and undergo that internal spark. Of course this process works both ways, so you have to watch out for that. Bad influences can drag people down as easily as good influences lift people up.

Peoples habits, entertainment, and outlets are easily answered through psychology. What makes people do the things they do is a quintessential question to understanding ourselves and is one heavily researched in Psychology. There is no simple answer to give you because your question is extremely complicated. You would have be specific about certain behaviors and then you have to learn about the person, their past, their thoughts, etc before you could honestly answer why are they the way they are.

Well lets just take TV for an example. There are no positive shows on it. Yet people are glued to it all the time.

I was going to look for some new documentaries to watch and all of them where in the vain of "teenager destroy their lives" , "famous basketball player destroys his career because for drugs" , "the ice is melting".
Why would I want to watch people who suck more then I do?

I want to watch something that makes me happy and inspired. That leaves me with some energy. But most TV-shows drains you like a bag of hammers.

Don't people see the correlation of single parenting becoming normal and the last 30 years of TV has advertised dysfunctional families as the norm?

Sypheara wrote:Avoid occult terms. Just tell them a negative environment causes negative reaction, as per cause and effect, and that it's psychology 101.

When talking to people who are not occultists, cant really wax and wane on talking about 'energy' as they'll immediately switch off.

Give them something more concrete they can relate to, i guess. Does that make sense?

I actually find people respond more to 'energy' then psychology.
If you mention anything psychological to normal people they usually get offended and shut off completely.
I know at least two people who would really benefit of going to a psychiatrist but even suggesting it is like kicking their baby in the face.

Rin wrote: Generally no. As has been said, most people are aware of why the vast majority of their problems (especially basic day to day stuff like mood or energy levels) exist on some level or another to at least some extent, it's just a question of whether the discomfort it causes on one level

That is the problem. They don't realize that their negative ways influences people around them. They think that they are isolated.

Individuals are like flowers. We need sunshine and water and proper soil for our roots.

There are activities that promote growth, and ones that dont.

Desecrated wrote:

Sypheara wrote:Avoid occult terms. Just tell them a negative environment causes negative reaction, as per cause and effect, and that it's psychology 101.

When talking to people who are not occultists, cant really wax and wane on talking about 'energy' as they'll immediately switch off.

Give them something more concrete they can relate to, i guess. Does that make sense?

I actually find people respond more to 'energy' then psychology.
If you mention anything psychological to normal people they usually get offended and shut off completely.
I know at least two people who would really benefit of going to a psychiatrist but even suggesting it is like kicking their baby in the face.

I wasn't necessarily suggesting you explain to them in psychological terms, as you seemed to simply want to understand them. And psychology and psychiatry are different, but similar. Psychiatry is psychology study by medical professionals (doctors) who focus more on the physical reasons for mental health (though not exclusively). Psychology is study through traditional university, Bachelors -> Masters -> Ph.d and focuses more on the cogitative and behavioral reasons for mental health. Psychiatrist will be far more likely to prescribe medication, where a Psychologist would be more likely to types of cognitive or behavioral therapy.

Stukov wrote:Psychiatrist will be far more likely to prescribe medication, where a Psychologist would be more likely to types of cognitive or behavioral therapy.

Technically there is a difference. But more then often, they operate pretty much the same.

If they're capable of it, try and take the time to initiate them, and bring them to where you are in your studies. Then, progress together.
That's the only thing I've been able to do for my significant other. Give them the information to help themselves.
Even if it starts out jokingly, it may come to some fruition for you. If they're already initiated on the path, they're kinda doing it wrong.
Anyway, good luck. I understand your problems, and sometimes people are unwilling to listen to the simple truths.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about, you just find bad t.v.. Don't watch cable or satellite. You can watch any good documentary on youtube, or other places on the internet.
I have literally 0 problem choosing not to watch brain melting television. I watch enthralling stories the likes of which should be told in tales passed down orally for generations.

Don't people see the correlation of single parenting becoming normal and the last 30 years of TV has advertised dysfunctional families as the norm?

Whatever do you mean by this?

Please clarify and quantify this statement.

Nahemah wrote:

Don't people see the correlation of single parenting becoming normal and the last 30 years of TV has advertised dysfunctional families as the norm?

Whatever do you mean by this?

Please clarify and quantify this statement.

The way I read it is he thinks a nuclear family was one that is normal and functions perfectly. I obviously disagree because everything I've ever learned about psychology, sociology, criminology, history, and hell even biology - conflict and dysfunction is part of who we are as individuals. The only times you don't have conflict is when people are brainwashed or oppressively ruled over.

While the nuclear family setup might not be perfect, especially not within the context of the conservative 50's/60's Western culture it's usually viewed in, I do 100% think that the ideal setup for a child is two parents who live together and operate as a team, dividing the breadwinning and housekeeping/parenting tasks between them. I don't care what gender those parents are (so this isn't an anti-gay marriage thing), I don't care which gender does the breadwinning and which does the housekeeping/parenting (so it's not a gender politics thing), but children have the best chance of growing up to be physically and mentally healthy when they have two adults who are dedicated to providing and caring for them and who divide that work up in a sensible, pre-decided fashion. One person just does not have enough time in their life to give children the attention they need and to work a regular job at the same time, and passing children back and forth between parents like playtoys makes it even worse. Add in the destructive mess that is family courts and it's become a major problem in our society that we're going to keep reaping the destructive backblow of.

Obviously this isn't always possible - people pass away, sadly, or lives fall apart in more insidious ways that make the individual an unsuitable partner, amongst the myriad of other issues that lead to our current epidemic of divorce, single parenting, kids being tossed back and forwards like toy balls and families made up of step-siblings (sometimes from more than two individuals). But the reality is that that environment is demonstrably destructive to the child's emotional and psycho-social health and to their chance of growing up to lead a productive and rewarding life.

Nahemah wrote:

Don't people see the correlation of single parenting becoming normal and the last 30 years of TV has advertised dysfunctional families as the norm?

Whatever do you mean by this?

Please clarify and quantify this statement.

It takes two to create a child. It takes a village to raise one.

Look at the simpssons, the dad is a drunk, the mother is worthless, the kid is out of control. The busdriver is a junkie, the teacher smokes in class.
Married with children. The dad is a drunk, the mother is an emotional moneygrabbing wreck, the daughter is a slut, the son is a moron. The neighbors are sexaddicts
The Brady bunch was a hippie commune.
The Cosby show taught us that the dad has absolutely no say whatsoever in his own house.
The Sopranos is a show about criminals. Every single character in that show is flawed.
Rosanne.....


Do you think all that negative crap has no effect on people?

Stukov wrote:

Nahemah wrote:

Don't people see the correlation of single parenting becoming normal and the last 30 years of TV has advertised dysfunctional families as the norm?

Whatever do you mean by this?

Please clarify and quantify this statement.

The way I read it is he thinks a nuclear family was one that is normal and functions perfectly. I obviously disagree because everything I've ever learned about psychology, sociology, criminology, history, and hell even biology - conflict and dysfunction is part of who we are as individuals. The only times you don't have conflict is when people are brainwashed or oppressively ruled over.

Conflict is a big word.

You might have political differences a s a couple, different hobbies, different taste in food and such.

But conflict like having fistfights, cheating on each other and rampant drug-use is not a good environment to be in. If you have that kind of relationship, please end it and find a better one.

It's not that the nuclear family is problem free or doesn't have to struggle. But what is portrait in media is far more extreme that what a normal family should have to go through.

Desecrated wrote: It takes two to create a child. It takes a village to raise one.

Look at the simpssons, the dad is a drunk, the mother is worthless, the kid is out of control. The busdriver is a junkie, the teacher smokes in class.
Married with children. The dad is a drunk, the mother is an emotional moneygrabbing wreck, the daughter is a slut, the son is a moron. The neighbors are sexaddicts
The Brady bunch was a hippie commune.
The Cosby show taught us that the dad has absolutely no say whatsoever in his own house.
The Sopranos is a show about criminals. Every single character in that show is flawed.
Rosanne.....


Do you think all that negative crap has no effect on people?

i think it does have an effect, yes.
i'm not sure though if the ususal good-against-evil-stuff is better.
perhaps it is, teaching about borders and differences, which can be a very healthy thing... but i'm not sure.
the things you listed are more like "laughing about it all", i suppose (i don't watch tv)
which is a good idea, sometimes, but i suppose it matters, which kind of laughing it is...

stories about things happening in harmony are quiet unusual in our culture, aren't they?
is there really nothing to tell about things happening in harmony, or have we just completely lost this kind of perception?

palindrom wrote:

stories about things happening in harmony are quiet unusual in our culture, aren't they?
is there really nothing to tell about things happening in harmony, or have we just completely lost this kind of perception?[/quote]


There are many successful people who have had a fairly normal life. You can also look at people who have been able to overcome adversities.
I think most of us can feel inspired by someone who had to struggle in the beginning and finally makes it. But unfortunately we so seldom get to see that. They only show people who gradually becomes worse and worse. Look at things like games of thrones and walking dead. It never gets better, the characters just go through more and more hardship.

I also think reality TV with hard working people would be interesting. especially if they where the experts in their field. I watch sport documentaries just for this reason.

I also think that learning is entertaining. I would gladly watch a tv show about somebody making birdhouses just to see someone else being creative and achieving a goal. And if they explain how as they go along, better for me.
But they always choose the shop/family that has the most conflict, not the ones who are the best.

Desecrated wrote: Conflict is a big word.

You might have political differences a s a couple, different hobbies, different taste in food and such.

But conflict like having fistfights, cheating on each other and rampant drug-use is not a good environment to be in. If you have that kind of relationship, please end it and find a better one.

It's not that the nuclear family is problem free or doesn't have to struggle. But what is portrait in media is far more extreme that what a normal family should have to go through.

No, I don't associate with people who have fist fights, cheats, or uses drugs. These are not the only example types of conflict, conflict occurs when individuals disagree (though one could argue that agreeing to disagree doesn't necessarily mean conflict, but thats more the limitation and semantics of language), and not all conflict is bad. Sports and competitions have sides in conflict and we play them out to better ourselves and for fun. Yes there are those who or poor sports who cheat or take things too seriously, but that doesn't mean conflict by its nature is a bad thing. Conflict and disagreement are a natural part of this world, and the only way you could ever hope to completely avoid it is to have everyone agree. Considering we are all individuals with independent minds and should everyone begin agreeing there is a serious issue going on.

I probably could said that "dysfunction" is normal in a better or more accurate way. For example when a person has some type of behavior that creates dysfunction for their lives, this a typical measuring stick for diagnosing mental illnesses. The phrase that is used is, you may have all the criteria of someone who has an obsessive compulsive disorder, but if it does not inhibit or prevent you from living a "normal" life, then you do not diagnosed with this disorder. The way "normal" is used in Psychology is rather that of "average". When you average the behaviors of all the people in a society, you take a bell curve average of function and behaviors to find your normal. When you do this, you find "normal" isn't perfect hunky dory, as the average person has some issues and areas where personal growth can occur. When you recognize that "normal" isn't "perfect" then you have a much better baseline to understand and address the issues we have as individuals. It also gives you opportunities to see those outliers who are really well adjusted in life and study why they are doing so much better than the average person.

These averages vary between cultures and society, it also varies between generations as society evolves. It gives us understanding where we came from, where we are, and where we are going. One of the more interesting things I've noticed is that while there are some very physiological understandings of how we function that don't change, when we become aware of certain experiments or studies regarding how people behave or think, when that is recognized by people in our society, you often find that was time goes on, newer studies show these thoughts or behaviors change or improve. Sometimes it's simply the previous studies are poorly done or analyzed, but sometimes it seems when we as a whole understand and are aware of ourselves the easier it is for us to improve those things about ourselves.

But at current time dysfunction (between individuals) is fairly common, thus normal, there are extremes of dysfunction that are certainly still outside the bell curve, and extremely harmful to each person, but these are degrees of dysfunction rather than complete dismissal of dysfunction as a whole.

This thread has slightly derailed.

Just an observation.

If you wish to discuss society. First look at where we are compared to where we've come from.

Focusing on the muddy details is always depressing.

Focus on the bigger picture and the overall trend and you might see a bright future for humanity.

At least I do.

I suppose you could consider it derailed, but the question was "why don't people understand how energy works"? And at least in my humble opinion, people don't understand a lot of things because of the things about people and society we discussed. But I don't want to dominate the conversation so I'll probably bow out.

Desecrated wrote:

Stukov wrote:Psychiatrist will be far more likely to prescribe medication, where a Psychologist would be more likely to types of cognitive or behavioral therapy.

Technically there is a difference. But more then often, they operate pretty much the same.

At least a psychologist won't ask to stop seeing you just because you want to taper off the drugs.