Either way. You're completely missing the point. First off "insane" is a completely non-precise term, and I strongly believe a clarification of psychological framework be made before the discussion actually begins. Let's stop wasting time on this. Let's stop throwing around "type" systems in CS but not in Psych, which are both supposed to be sciences.
I sent this to some developer (acting as a recruiter) for a prominent SF company during a bar run (he was looking for front-end devs not with 10+ startups under their belt but with someone they're looking to mold):
The Web is a hypermedia application. So we're building pretty much http://schema.org/ vocabularies implemented over models (Django, Rails, etc.) with hypermedia specs (front-end begging for more data in more stupid ways than anyone cares to document).
Look. You want kids who'll acclimate better than the Chinese or Russians to text editors like LightTable and who enjoy the pleasures of vim-seek.
And you want an actual Web, or at least people who have dreams which logically entail that such a thing is possible (dreams of mundane facts).
So what am I getting at? What are you dreams restricted by? Is it this or that job? What are you building? What am I building? And what why does it seem that we should be building these things, by our evolution? Demanding high-pay? Insane? What are you talking about? "High-pay"? "Insane"?
What does any of this have to do with the Internet Declaration of Independence? Why are you inheriting this psychological framework? Why haven't you consumed post-structuralism? Why is your Internet "American"?
Again: "Insane"?
That's in your headline. In your headline. Headline. That's significant weight.
Stoicism as a philosophy consisted of 3 parts, where the order of teaching itself depended on the Stoic teacher in question, but nevertheless the Stoic teacher usually had a reason for the particular order. The idea that each part depended on the others is an integral structural component of Stoicism.
To emphasize Ethics, for instance, and not at all address the Physics or Logic: this conceptually and historically cannot be Stoicism. Call it 'ascetic maximalism' or whatever you want, but it is not conceptually or historically Stoicism.
The OP has only underscored Stoic Ethics, or at least butchered it, and this clearly shows. Logic nor Physics appears in the OP, and the OP assumes or implies that Stoicisms would accept a doctrine of fatalism.
Stoics were not fatalist, and it is unfortunate that this misinformation continues to color and determine our perception of Stoic history and Stoic thought.
What you are reading in the OP cannot historically or conceptually be called "Modern Stoicism." Physics and Logic are important. It is important that all Stoics, for instance, treat certain questions of logic in a certain way. Historically, students would not be accepted into certain schools or by certain teachers if those students did not accept the logical foundations of their teachers.
Moreover, many teachers order logic first, before Physics and before Ethics. So to leave it (or Physics for that matter) out, supposing one were talking about Stoicism, historically Stoic teachers would simply quizzically glance you over and remind you of the importance of logic, even if what you say happens to align with their philosophical tenets. Getting there by accident is fair, but that's not Stoicism.
Use vim, with powerline, nerdtree, fugitive, and other pathogen-based plugs by tpope, etc.
This IDE versus editor discussion is pointless. You should be configuring your tools, not learning them.
You need to practice at practicing, if you will. So wake up each day, grab a coffee, and [code](http://typing.io) for 15 minutes. You have to stretch your muscles, if you buy that memory and modules of the brain are elastic "muscles."
I call dibs on the (Whole) language acquisition app.
- It should [syzygy](http://journal.webscience.org/491/) search the Web for ideal-phrase candidates (linguistic constructs which conform to Whole language teaching practices) from an array of languages.
- It should intuitively accept as input, that said, hypernyms, undernyms, synonyms, vernacularisms, idiomatic alternatives for morphological units.
- It should present alternative typesettings, including notational fonts and dyslexic fonts (like AlphaSymbolic and OpenDyslexic).
- It should have an Easter egg where the scales of music are present for piano.
And actually, this all fits roundly into my project, Poemtrii. Thanks HN:.
For one thing, I am also a musician. I can drink the tunes in my head instead whilst bar-goers drink away their sorrows. It is all quite funny. And if there's any sense to "psychedelia" I'm quite, quite certain I am on the right track. Poetry as well. Short fiction. And a varying array of other areas; my abilities to dash through propositional logic proofs, predicate logic proofs, truth trees, and now the reading of AlphaSymbolic. And it is absolutely not something I fear -- that I now intimately understand what is meant by "code is poetry."
During one "hacking session." I was able to locate and provide evidence for the discovery of a kidnapper and accomplice in Prague, employing wigle and an awkward set of assumptions regarding Web behavior and commercial geotechnological limitations. First try. To say the least, my assumptions were more compelling to a private investigator than an Investigative Team's report.
And I'm coming out of PTSD/grieving/autistic-traits land.
One thing I seriously ask HNers to reflect on is that. Combined with those facts I play serious amounts of futball where also implemention of techniques from Jeet Kune Do are also integral. Parkour, child's play. I am personally hacking all sorts of things, fully taking "hack the planet" too far and into territories that I doubt many are considering in their lives. I am trying my best to understand Spinoza's "Intellectual Love of God," and I am on a hunt for "attributes of substance each of which express an infinite and eternal essence." And I have consumed your "analytic" and "continental" schools of philosophy in a heartbeat. --
I now think in Vim. In my mind, usually, being at a computer keyboard is indistinguishable from being at a piano keyboard.
I climb trees like a pro, and people cannot help themselves from commenting on my vocabulary and conversational eloquence. For some reason, it's here where my strategies fail. Here, and most of the Web.
I'm doing something here, with this body of mine, larynx to toes, and you cannot really stop me. In much the way that things like autism cannot be stopped, methinks. Moreover, there is significant research being done by Steven Pinker et al. on the "linguistic" module of the brain and its autonomy from other forms of intelligence, through Williams Syndrome -- and as you can readily see, I am quite, quite ready to share.
So pardon me if the tossing about of the mental predicates seems juvenile and careless. It just does; quite ill-fitting. Only here, in the Web, am I perceived as deranged or "hyper" or excessive or "schizophrenic," or worst yet, and more importantly, are these predications tossed about with such frequency and handled with the least care. Perhaps that is a good thing, for things to be messy. But sometimes this mismanagement of terms spills its way over into everyday living. To the distress of people like me, who have a particular interest in exploring the structures of consciousness and cognitive enhancement.
And need I preface this that it is my opinion? Need I, indeed?
That's bias. What makes popping pills and modern science less liable to harm? Even in modern drugs today we are seeing them modeled on magic mushrooms and exotic drugs cited by McKenna and related authors. -- We're not even on the same page as we speak here.
And that's because of bias. Moreover, I've cited authors who are leaders of these fields, who present at TED and speak in recent discussion forums. McKenna is modern. Stamets is modern.
You just don't read these people, and that's why I cited the madinamerica.com article.
You're just telling me about linguistic and intellectual biases that I'm already fully aware of, and that I tried to anticipate with my post.
And operative word: "if" -- "if" that research is flawed. What are you even arguing? I could argue that against modern medicine, but that is circumstantial and requires precision. What you are saying is not precise, and hardly even relevant; or rather it is too vague to be relevant. Any research can be flawed. But there is even a further question of interpretation of that research; hence why I say "understand." You're using broad strokes as if I am doing so, when I am not.
I honestly just think it's linguistic/information exchange bias going on here. I'm citing those I'm reading. You're telling me that anything could be inaccurate or falsehood; that doesn't get us anywhere.
And how did you get "ignoring mental health problems?"
How did you get that? Honestly? How? I'm telling you to read up on how ancient mysticisms categorize these problems and relate them to advanced, therapeutic drug use.
Somehow you got "ignore the problems" when I explicitly tell you to go read alternative research on the topic.
Honestly, wtf? My post says "Go read book X" on the matter, and you want to start jumping to claims of "ignorance."
Where are you getting "ignorance" etc? I'm not espousing universals here. I'm not at all saying it's black or white. I too am speaking in generalization which can be subject to counterexample.
Read. May I add some color to my writing? Gosh.
If you're going to start throwing out "your wrong," I must ask you to read. Read.
And we're talking about schizophrenia. Why am I being charged with opinions that I haven't even expressed on psychosis? I'm not here to discuss the whole range of psychosis.
"Gaining acceptance into graduate school or medical school and achieving a PhD or MD and becoming a psychologist or psychiatrist means jumping through many hoops, all of which require much behavioral and attentional compliance to authorities, even to those authorities that one lacks respect for. The selection and socialization of mental health professionals tends to breed out many anti-authoritarians. Having steered the higher-education terrain for a decade of my life, I know that degrees and credentials are primarily badges of compliance. Those with extended schooling have lived for many years in a world where one routinely conforms to the demands of authorities. Thus for many MDs and PhDs, people different from them who reject this attentional and behavioral compliance appear to be from another world—a diagnosable one."
There are too many everyday people armed with psychiatric terms.
Stop it. Many nootropic and psychotropic drugs induce many of those hallucinations. Accept it. And learn how to understand what your body is telling you, rather than treating it like it's some operating table experiment that you'd being graded to poke and prod. Your body is a diagnostician, albeit a cryptic one that has needs, demands and quirks of its own. Most of you simply do not know how to live in your skin because, for one, you were likely raised religious and you've learned how to spite your own "holy temple," not only with deeds but in your minds, your mental habits and cognitive hygiene.
Read a book, like Food of the Gods or something about the organic complexity and biodiversity of this world. Understand.
Stop fearing Nature, and understand how to become harmonious with it.