well this morning i woke up and looked at my laptop and saw that i had written a page on a theory similar to freuds id ego and super ego. I guess i was wicked blazed from toking on bubble hash (in the northeast...a rarity at least for me) and mr. nice's and had a discussion with a friend about it. i wrote down i think the most important part of my argument because it seemed logical and i wanna see if anyone agrees disagrees or doesn't care but enough of the intro, heres my argument.

I believe the id, ego and super ego should be re named to the sin, the decision and the honorable choice. The sin is uninfluenced desire, while the honorable choice is the idealist decision. The decision is the balance between the two. If viewed with the example of sharing a candy bar, the sin is to not share and eat the entire bar, while the honorable choice would be to give up your entire candy bar. This is the stem of reality that is split between objective reality and reality that comes from making decisions. Object reality is often perception, when one does not have to apply decisions but merely accepts. The tree for example is viewed merely as an object that co-exists with us in this dimensional plane. When the time comes to choose between two trees, the tree then moves into the reality of the decision/choice and consequence. Once preference and factors arise then the choice becomes strictly about the extremes and the consequence of the path chosen. The decision is then neutral at all times yet it can be patterned. Over time, the pattern will reveal that one tends to lean towards one side over the other. Emotions fall under preference and factor since you have to either be born with them or learn them over time. Love can then be viewed as unforeseeable favoritism; a passion. This prejudice is in stark contrast to hate, yet both have similar outcomes of a decision. If looked at with candy again in a two choice scenario, one could miss out a better deal for taking the loved piece and one could pick up something worse from taking something other than the hated. From the decision stems reasoning. Reasoning is the rationalization of the decision. Denial comes as the rationalization of failure in the application of the honorable choice or the rationalization of a decision to not follow the honorable choice. Acceptance is the alternate route of denial. The honorable choice can still be failed but acceptance is understanding. The third path is neutrality. No choice is to be taken but thats a choice in itself. Happiness comes from the successful balancing of sin and the honorable choice. For it to be true happiness, there can not be any dissatisfaction among any who are involved in the choice. Like the candy bar example, one could be truly happy by either eating your entire candy bar or giving it all away, yet this is not true happiness as there is no balance between the honorable and the sin. By eating it, one does not share and the other is unhappy, by giving it away, one does not eat and is left dissatisfied, at least stomach wise. Giving 50% or a piece of your bar, will lead to a true happiness since both parties are satisfied.


So share and eat candy

i couldn't read the whole thing, add. but I think your right on. although your saying the exact same thing as freud, except using different words to describe them. but I would say that you understand the theory pretty well.

__________________
my eyes always look like so if you dont like it! NOT GREED PEOPLE!

thanks man for taking the time to read it. i read it again today, about a month later and found that i do need some more research on it since i kinda went a lil biased towards the end. it was a bit of a complicated thought though that i'm glad to have gotten out