‘A Science of Man’ to transcend ‘The Man of Science’

Psychology, which began as protest against religion, has evolved into a reaffirmation of a non material aspect of our human nature. I would say that this non material aspect is not yet readily definable but is referred to as a ‘spiritual’ aspect of our nature; this spiritual aspect transcends our material nature but need not be synonymous with that aspect of human nature that religion wishes to focus upon and define.

I think that a person who wishes to comprehend what the science of psychology offers us must hold in abeyance their inclination to dismiss anything that does not fit their present categories of knowledge. If we add to our standard ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ attitudes a button for ‘hold judgment until better informed’ we might learn much important knowledge and might just develop an understanding of what we are and why we do the things we do.

Modern depth psychology consists of varied theories interpreting the “unconscious depths” of wo/man; these theories reverse some of the earlier concepts and focus not only upon “a new conception of human personality, but a new approach to art and religions as well as change in the way we see ourselves in history.”

The principal figures in this depth psychology are Sigmund Freud and his three protégés Alfred Adler, C.G. Jung, and Otto Rank. These individuals are considered to be the Big Four depth psychology. They are like branches sprouting from the same tree trunk.

Psychology attempts to understand the modifications in human existence resulting from the changes in deeply held patterns of culture of the accustomed national or tribal ways of life before the industrial revolution. These traditional ways of the past provided “built-in psychic security for the individual…But when the old groups were physically broken up and their members were scattered in the factories of the cities, or when, for any of many reasons, the faith in their teachings was gone, the individual was left unprotected.”

The materialistic and mechanistic model of human nature that evolved from the eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment coupled with the modern success in technology has produced a citizenry in Western society that is enchanted with the view of human nature that idolizes the Man of Science.

The man in the Man of Science is a cipher. The scientific method is a process wherein the human agent is best when he or she is cleansed of many humanistic characteristics. Often a robot would better serve as the scientist than would a human.

The man in the Science of Man is center stage. The man, either he or she, is the major participant and the major object of comprehension in all activities that form the focus of a Science of Man.

I think that cognitive science coupled with the sciences of psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology, and anthropology now provide us with knowledge of human nature that makes possible a Science of Man that goes well beyond this mechanistic view of human nature. I also am led to conclude that the unconscious is the most important aspect of man and woman that must be studied in a Science of Man.

Quotes from “The Death and Rebirth of Psychology”—Ira Progoff

Questions for discussion.

Can you tolerate a mode of self-learning that includes the attitude of “hold judgment until better informed”?

‘A Science of Man’ to transcend ‘The Man of Science’

Psychology, which began as protest against religion, has evolved into a reaffirmation of a non material aspect of our human nature. I would say that this non material aspect is not yet readily definable but is referred to as a ‘spiritual’ aspect of our nature; this spiritual aspect transcends our material nature but need not be synonymous with that aspect of human nature that religion wishes to focus upon and define.

I think that a person who wishes to comprehend what the science of psychology offers us must hold in abeyance their inclination to dismiss anything that does not fit their present categories of knowledge. If we add to our standard ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ attitudes a button for ‘hold judgment until better informed’ we might learn much important knowledge and might just develop an understanding of what we are and why we do the things we do.

Modern depth psychology consists of varied theories interpreting the “unconscious depths” of wo/man; these theories reverse some of the earlier concepts and focus not only upon “a new conception of human personality, but a new approach to art and religions as well as change in the way we see ourselves in history.”

The principal figures in this depth psychology are Sigmund Freud and his three protégés Alfred Adler, C.G. Jung, and Otto Rank. These individuals are considered to be the Big Four depth psychology. They are like branches sprouting from the same tree trunk.

Psychology attempts to understand the modifications in human existence resulting from the changes in deeply held patterns of culture of the accustomed national or tribal ways of life before the industrial revolution. These traditional ways of the past provided “built-in psychic security for the individual…But when the old groups were physically broken up and their members were scattered in the factories of the cities, or when, for any of many reasons, the faith in their teachings was gone, the individual was left unprotected.”

The materialistic and mechanistic model of human nature that evolved from the eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment coupled with the modern success in technology has produced a citizenry in Western society that is enchanted with the view of human nature that idolizes the Man of Science.

The man in the Man of Science is a cipher. The scientific method is a process wherein the human agent is best when he or she is cleansed of many humanistic characteristics. Often a robot would better serve as the scientist than would a human.

The man in the Science of Man is center stage. The man, either he or she, is the major participant and the major object of comprehension in all activities that form the focus of a Science of Man.

I think that cognitive science coupled with the sciences of psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology, and anthropology now provide us with knowledge of human nature that makes possible a Science of Man that goes well beyond this mechanistic view of human nature. I also am led to conclude that the unconscious is the most important aspect of man and woman that must be studied in a Science of Man.

Quotes from “The Death and Rebirth of Psychology”—Ira Progoff

Questions for discussion.

Can you tolerate a mode of self-learning that includes the attitude of “hold judgment until better informed”?

Hi Coberst! I think that with this topic/thread that what you are presenting is in over most everybodies head. Because Psycology is also considered a realigion :) (not really a science) and because I have studied it, I find your topic interesting should you desire to persue it :)

Psychiatry solves things with medication. Psychology, except in very rare stiuations, doesn't ever really solve anything. Psychiatry says that our mother screwed us up. Psychology says that our mother screwed us up (Tucher58 looks a Sal and says that that lady had a good mother :) ). Psychology tells you what is wrong with you, but they really have no solve. Psychiatry doen't actually tell you what is wrong with you, but :) they have medication and who cares why one is screwed up :) If the medication is any good!

Coberst you have introduced a pseudo science into a religion and philosophy forum, just like Schloon did with his topic about Psychiatry. The only saving grace here is that they both are religions :) even though God is not envolved.

Psychology and Psychiatry are pretty good for CIA sort of stuff and Fundimentalist religion sort of stuff, when one wants to create "Gagas" (mind mechanics on others :) ) "A Pavlov's Dog and Skinner's Box sort of thing", But we really have to stretch things to talk about Psycology and Psychiatry in a Religion and Philosophy forum.

But at the sametime Coberst, what if we talked about "The Psychology of Religion" and maybe about how the "Sheep" are being doped? "Tucker58 looks at Nappy and others :) ".

It is not compicated realitive to Psychology, what is acyually being done, it is just that nobody has the "balls" to talk about it :) and it should be said that you could end up with hordes of "Gagas" (an sometimes one is enough) on your butt, because "The Magogs" sicked their "Gogs" on you :) I love that part!

Tucker58

Hi Coberst! I think that with this topic/thread that what you are presenting is in over most everybodies head. Because Psycology is also considered a realigion :) (not really a science) and because I have studied it, I find your topic interesting should you desire to persue it :)

Psychiatry solves things with medication. Psychology, except in very rare stiuations, doesn't ever really solve anything. Psychiatry says that our mother screwed us up. Psychology says that our mother screwed us up (Tucher58 looks a Sal and says that that lady had a good mother :) ). Psychology tells you what is wrong with you, but they really have no solve. Psychiatry doen't actually tell you what is wrong with you, but :) they have medication and who cares why one is screwed up :) If the medication is any good!

Coberst you have introduced a pseudo science into a religion and philosophy forum, just like Schloon did with his topic about Psychiatry. The only saving grace here is that they both are religions :) even though God is not envolved.

Psychology and Psychiatry are pretty good for CIA sort of stuff and Fundimentalist religion sort of stuff, when one wants to create "Gagas" (mind mechanics on others :) ) "A Pavlov's Dog and Skinner's Box sort of thing", But we really have to stretch things to talk about Psycology and Psychiatry in a Religion and Philosophy forum.

But at the sametime Coberst, what if we talked about "The Psychology of Religion" and maybe about how the "Sheep" are being doped? "Tucker58 looks at Nappy and others :) ".

It is not compicated realitive to Psychology, what is acyually being done, it is just that nobody has the "balls" to talk about it :) and it should be said that you could end up with hordes of "Gagas" (an sometimes one is enough) on your butt, because "The Magogs" sicked their "Gogs" on you :) I love that part!

Tucker58

I am constantly presented with sophomoric bluff and bluster from those who know little about psychology beyond the standard pop-psychology. Yours seems to be just another bit of bluster without any authorative support.

I am constantly presented with sophomoric bluff and bluster from those who know little about psychology beyond the standard pop-psychology. Yours seems to be just another bit of bluster without any authorative support.

Hum a few bars Coberst and I will sing along with you :)

Coberst you are passing judgement on me and you don't even know me. I am inviting you to share your wisdom with us, and I am the only one on this messageboard that can actually do this and who can actually understand what you are saying.

Coberst present your "Thesis" and lets have a look at it. Don't underestimate my knowledge of the human mind and psychology just because I act uneducated, just for fun :)

When you posted what you posted, I posted a version of what you expected someone to post, so that you could feel superior and be righteous in your knowledge. And you did and are. Coberst I used psychology on you :) and you fell for it :)

So Coberst lets start here, "Explain to us how someone can easily become a Self Actualized Person." If you can do this I will glady kneel at your feet.

Tucker58

Tucker58

On these forums all we can know about a poster is what s/he posts. Your post was like so many others who trashed psychology while ignorant of psychology. Perhaps you will write something that will cause me to change my judgment.

No one can easily become a self-actualzing self-learner, however, any attempt will be worth the effort that is invested.


I would like to introduce a concept that perhaps many have not given consideration. I would like to introduce post-schooling scholarship.

I think we have placed scholarship on a too lofty pedestal and in doing so we have placed it beyond reach or consideration. I want to suggest that middle class scholarship is reality that we all should consider as a friend to be embraced as our own.

The development of an economic middle class is the hallmark of success in any mature nation. I think it is possible that the development of a scholarly middle class could represent a similar development in the life of democracy of a nation.

I think that schooling in America has been given the assignment to prepare our young people to enter the work place. Our schools and colleges are required by society to prepare young people as efficiently as possibly to become troopers in the drive to maximize production and consumption. This assignment gives our teachers and professors little time to prepare individuals to become critical thinking mature intellects prepared to understand a rapidly developing reality driven by the technology these graduates are capable of producing.

I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty-five years of self-actuated learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”

I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge. I think of myself as a middle class scholar.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-actualized learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the middle class scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

Coberst, what you have posted was clear precise and very well said. What you posted is what you should have posted when you started this topic :)

There would then have been no room for argument, ignorant or educated :)

So Coberst basically your topic comes under the heading of "Philosophy". And what you have is a philosophy of life that based on your experience enhances one's life experience. And because of the internet even those like me, who are very low income, can explore "disinterested knowledge" and there by enhance their life experience. And to be honest with you it is kind of cool to get to visit with someone who is actually self actualized, which I am not :) but would like to be.

So coberst where would you like to go from here? I honestly find you and what you wish to share with us all, facinating.

Tucker58

Also Coberst I would like to kick this your way, "What do you know about the "Psycho-Social Dynamics of a Messageboard?" That aspect of social science is kind of a blend between Psychology and Sociology :)

I ask this because you are attempting to share a gift to others on a messageboard, :) which is actually a group of individuals that are a social community. Social communities can be abit of a handfull :) fair enough?

"Tucker58 picks up Sal's tail feather and says thank you!" Sal you are loved :) but scarry :) ! EEK!

Tucker58

tucker

My purpose in posting on these forums is to bring to the consciousness of the reader certain ideas that I think are important. It is my hope that the reader will become curious enough to turn to the books or Google in an eefort to become more knowledgable about the idea in question.

I wish for everyone to become a self-actualizing self-learner when their school days are over.

Is there some discussion of this subject you speak of "Psyco-social Dynamics of a Messageboard". It is a new idea to me but I would be interested in reading whatever others might have to say about such an idea.

originally post by tucker
Psychology says that our mother screwed us up (Tucher58 looks a Sal and says that that lady had a good mother ).

Interestingly, I had an excellent mother. Not perfect but emotionally and mentally highly evolved, very stable. Kids and animals understood that immediately upon being with her. My father also was excellent. Socially further evolved than my mother but not emotionally. Mentally, I don't know, perhaps equal.

coberst, I find the concepts that you post to be quite fascinating but way too weighty. If you were to break them down, more people would give you feedback. I am no longer a student and uninterested in ploughing through huge amounts of cut and paste. It is dry and has no emotion or "guts".

Were you to break it down into manageable discussion pieces many would respond. I myself am useless at beginning threads. I have tried different times. My stuff is never controversial enough because I personally seek balance and it is reflected in my threads so they don't go anyway. Also, I am not good at coaxing responses. Tucker is.

Also and this is not a criticism but your statement: "I am constantly presented with sophomoric bluff and bluster from those who know little about psychology beyond the standard pop-psychology. Yours seems to be just another bit of bluster without any authorative support." as a student of the mind you must be aware that if you are constantly presented with that perhaps it is generated from you and the way you present as we draw to us what we give.

We are not students of psychology here but we are all students of life and as such we can all learn from each other if given the chance.

Just trying to be helpful. :)

Also and this is not a criticism but your statement: "I am constantly presented with sophomoric bluff and bluster from those who know little about psychology beyond the standard pop-psychology. Yours seems to be just another bit of bluster without any authorative support." as a student of the mind you must be aware that if you are constantly presented with that perhaps it is generated from you and the way you present as we draw to us what we give.
Not quite. I think you read too much into the quote. The psychological concept you speak of is boundaries. If you have weak, easily permeable boundaries, you allow others complete access to the psychological buttons that override the logical mind. Coberst is speaking logically here, not psychologically. He is not referring to boundaries, merely the tendency of Americans to be poorly informed about psychology, and his suspicion that tucker's statements are derived from that.

Not quite. I think you read too much into the quote. The psychological concept you speak of is boundaries. If you have weak, easily permeable boundaries, you allow others complete access to the psychological buttons that override the logical mind. Coberst is speaking logically here, not psychologically. He is not referring to boundaries, merely the tendency of Americans to be poorly informed about psychology, and his suspicion that tucker's statements are derived from that.

Hm upon giving it a second read, I think perhaps you are right Nappy, thanks.

~Sal~

You have made some good points. However, it seems to me that these forums are full of fluff and I see no reason to add to it. I want to awaken the sleeping giant that is in everyone. And to awaken a sleeping giant requires a big punch.

tucker

My purpose in posting on these forums is to bring to the consciousness of the reader certain ideas that I think are important. It is my hope that the reader will become curious enough to turn to the books or Google in an eefort to become more knowledgable about the idea in question.

I wish for everyone to become a self-actualizing self-learner when their school days are over.

Is there some discussion of this subject you speak of "Psyco-social Dynamics of a Messageboard". It is a new idea to me but I would be interested in reading whatever others might have to say about such an idea.

Coberst, your purpose is a worthy purpose and based on my experience with seeking "Disinterested Knowledge", your concept and goal are a gift to others. I personally look forward to reading your posts and interacting with them, if you leave me any room for argument :)

"The Psyco-Social Dynamics of a Messageboard" is one of the projects that I am working on and it hasn't been published. So I guess you are a part of the research, what ever that means :)

The nifty thing about attemping to share ones widom with others on a message board is the input that you get from all kinds of people, good, bad, indifferent, and everything in the middle :) And generally speaking most people get discouraged and give up because of the negativity to their message that they incounter or they go to war which actually makes things worse. A messageboard enviornment is not for the week kneed or the short fused :)

There are two different parts to a messageboard: The "posters" (people who post) and the "viewers" (who generally don't post.) The "posters' are actors on a stage and the "viewers" are the audience. When we post we are the intertainment and the viewers tune it to watch the intertainment. "Tucker58 loves Sal's tail feather that she droped! It is going into my messageboard scrapbook to be remembered fondly in my really old age. :) "

Tucker58

Tucker

I have concluded that responders are individuals who feel compelled to place their opinion in public view. Often they never read beyond the title, their responses often have no connection with the subject matter of the post except in so far as the title reflects that content. Responders have opinions but seldom have considered opinions.

I have been posting on these forums for more than 3 years and have reached the conclusion that 70% 0f those who respond are under the age of 25. There is no way of knowing anything about the lurkers.

Responders want to respond and they seldom have knowledge about the matter of the OP and thus the negative response is the best they can do. A negative response is easy, if the OP says X is true the responder merely says X is false.

I suspect these forums are often just a verbal video game for manmy responders.

I suspect these forums are often just a verbal video game for manly responders.

To have figured me out in just a single sentence, I'm impressed!

Responders want to respond and they seldom have knowledge about the matter of the OP and thus the negative response is the best they can do. A negative response is easy, if the OP says X is true the responder merely says X is false.
I think you're spot on here, and it's easily verified by my own experience reading your posts. There was a time earlier in my life where I cared about the topics you post on. Me and you could have had some lively discussions, then. You may even find my blog (http://napsterbater.blogspot.com/) interesting, as I wrote it back then. But now, I'm not interested any more. Chalk it up to my youth, but to take more than the fleetingest passing interest in topics like philosophy and psychology, just bores the living hell out of me.

I have been posting on these forums for more than 3 years
Since the tag "coberst" (Bright Eyes fan, I'd wager) hasn't even been here for a year I feel a need to ask you who these other SNs were for the other 2+ years.

Tucker

I have concluded that responders are individuals who feel compelled to place their opinion in public view. Often they never read beyond the title, their responses often have no connection with the subject matter of the post except in so far as the title reflects that content. Responders have opinions but seldom have considered opinions.

I have been posting on these forums for more than 3 years and have reached the conclusion that 70% 0f those who respond are under the age of 25. There is no way of knowing anything about the lurkers.

Responders want to respond and they seldom have knowledge about the matter of the OP and thus the negative response is the best they can do. A negative response is easy, if the OP says X is true the responder merely says X is false.

I suspect these forums are often just a verbal video game for manmy responders.

Coberst :) based on my 5 years of playing the messageboard circuit I have to agree with you :) But I would like to add that I personally think that some people are just plain mean :)

I figured that you had some back ground experience with The pscho-social dynamics of messageboard stuff by the way the you handled my first post.

I was out of line by the way, but I had to know. To me a messageboard is a social group and getting to know the people that you are socializing with helps to enhance the social experience. Coberst I like these people and I like All Forums. On this messageboard it/things is/are never boring :) on one hand it has a wild west quality to it and one the other hand it has good sheriffs that are very wise and cool headed. To me this all adds up to good fun :) yes when one first enters a messageboard there is a bit of a "pecking order" sort of thing, but that is how you get to know people, so that is good to. All is well.

I have found that with "Disinterested Knowledge" you become a jack of all trades and that there is always something that fits. I even know abit about engineering, my mechanical aptitude is in the 98 percentile. I love physics, it made perfect sense to me. I had a bad experience on my first day in first grade. I hated shcool all the way through. I have a B.A. in botany, but most of it was kind of pre med biology. Zoophys slowed me down, I didn't want to run experiments on living animals. So I transferred my credits from biology to botany, picked up some extra classes and got a B.A. in botany. Plant medicine and diseases.

I like your concept of associating "Didinterested Knowledge" with "Self Actualization". Ever since my Psych of Adjustment class I have always been interested in "Self Actualization" as a concept.

Tucker58

~Sal~

You have made some good points. However, it seems to me that these forums are full of fluff and I see no reason to add to it. I want to awaken the sleeping giant that is in everyone. And to awaken a sleeping giant requires a big punch.

How about this :) "The sleeping giant lies nestled in a fluffy bed."

"Tucker58 tickles Sal with a "goose" feather :) "

Tucker58

To have figured me out in just a single sentence, I'm impressed!


I think you're spot on here, and it's easily verified by my own experience reading your posts. There was a time earlier in my life where I cared about the topics you post on. Me and you could have had some lively discussions, then. You may even find my blog (http://napsterbater.blogspot.com/) interesting, as I wrote it back then. But now, I'm not interested any more. Chalk it up to my youth, but to take more than the fleetingest passing interest in topics like philosophy and psychology, just bores the living hell out of me.

I can understand that. The important thing is that a person find an intellectual life that fits the needs and character of that person. Different strokes for different folks. A person needs to follow their own personality because that is how to 'know thyself'.

Since the tag "coberst" (Bright Eyes fan, I'd wager) hasn't even been here for a year I feel a need to ask you who these other SNs were for the other 2+ years.
"These forums" mean these Internet discussion forums.

Coberst,

Your first post read like a short, undergraduate term paper. Many of us have been there and done that, even in the field of psychology.

Your post regarding continuous learning for the sake of learning itself was quite different. You seem to think that you are the only one who learns for the sheer joy of learning. Ask Rendova or DarkFantasy how many history books they have read lately. Ask how many have read Jared Diamond's books. Ask us if any of us pursue learning for the simple joy of learning before jumping to conclusions.

So Mr. Coberst, assuming you are a man, after all what woman could be an engineer? "Tucker58 looks at "Sal" and ducks :) "

Mr. Coberst, can/will you explain to us interested others what this mysterious "Self Actualized" person is all about? Can "Sal" be "Self Actualized" also? she is a woman you know!

Tucker58

Coberst,

Your first post read like a short, undergraduate term paper. Many of us have been there and done that, even in the field of psychology.

Your post regarding continuous learning for the sake of learning itself was quite different. You seem to think that you are the only one who learns for the sheer joy of learning. Ask Rendova or DarkFantasy how many history books they have read lately. Ask how many have read Jared Diamond's books. Ask us if any of us pursue learning for the simple joy of learning before jumping to conclusions.

Can even "Frogger"?

Tucker58 :)

So Mr. Coberst, assuming you are a man, after all what woman could be an engineer? "Tucker58 looks at "Sal" and ducks :) "

Mr. Coberst, can/will you explain to us interested others what this mysterious "Self Actualized" person is all about? Can "Sal" be "Self Actualized" also? she is a woman you know!

Tucker58Can even "Frogger"?
Eh, Frogger and I are as old as dust. Can dust be self-actualized? That's the bigger question here. We are missing that subtly in this superfluous discussion. ;)

I love these people who think they are sui generis. coberst discoverd later in life that learning for its own sake can be fun and for some reason he seems to think he is the only person in the world to have made this momentous discovery. The rest of us dolts simply learn so that we can earn more in the work place.

I would be willing to wager that the majority of the participants in Allforums enjoy learning for its own sake.

I love these people who think they are sui generis. coberst discoverd later in life that learning for its own sake can be fun and for some reason he seems to think he is the only person in the world to have made this momentous discovery. The rest of us dolts simply learn so that we can earn more in the work place.

I would be willing to wager that the majority of the participants in Allforums enjoy learning for its own sake.

Boy that is awfully strong language there Frogger :)

I would wagger with you Frogger, just to be contrary :) but I would loose!

I went to one concert in my younger days, (the only one that I have ever been to) with 75,000 other people. I managed to piss off 1500 people at the same time, my whole section. And it wasn't even my fault. :)

At least here when I upset people it is my fault. And I deserve what I get! I love that part :)

Tucker58

Eh, Frogger and I are as old as dust. Can dust be self-actualized? That's the bigger question here. We are missing that subtly in this superfluous discussion. ;)

Sal you do have a point there :) if a person hasn't learned by the time that they are as "old as dust" :) they are pretty much screwed!

Sal the funny thing about it is that you and Frogger are actually (not that it matters :) ) "Self Actualized".

I guess the question is, "Can you teach an old dog new tricks?" Personally, as an old dog (who is really scruffy), I hate it when somebody tries to teach me new tricks. But at the sametime one does get tired of napping :)

"Tucker58 loves what Sal does with "dust"! :) "

Tucker58

How old a dog are you, Tucker? I'm guessing 49. If I am right that makes you a fairly young dog unless compared with the pups around here who haven't even been weaned yet. Even Sal is new dust if she is dust at all.

How old a dog are you, Tucker? I'm guessing 49. If I am right that makes you a fairly young dog unless compared with the pups around here who haven't even been weaned yet. Even Sal is new dust if she is dust at all.

Frogger, I am fifty-eight. To me I am old, but to alot of people of my generation that is not old :) They consider me one of those pups that haven't be weened yet :) I have no idea how this could possibly be :)

Frogger, I am sort of/mostly :) a recluse and I have spent most of my life in meditation seeking union with God. "All Forums.net" is a treasured reality as an opportunity to explore a social reality with some really bright people who have a significant head start on me when it comes to a social reality (And I am being honest with you, fair enough?)

The truth is Frogger, I love you guys and "All Forums" (they have cool people and cool management. I really and have always loved Borghunter, he is an awesome kid.)! You Frogger and everybody are a gift to a "pup" that hasn't been weaned yet. And again I am being honest with you.

And this needs to be said:

Sal I am not after you (or anybody else) in a sexual sense. I have been a women on the internet (mostly in chat rooms and was actually pretty good at it :) we will just let it go at that :) ) So I do understand what a declared person of the "female persursion" is up against :) generally speaking on the internet.

Anyway, "Not!" I actually do love your mind and personality and wit :) ! Fair enough?

Thank you Frogger for your post! It is appreciated!

Tucker58

Girls don't post on the Internet. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Girls don't post on the Internet. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Hey Nappy! :) how is it hanging?

Tucky58 :)