GoshisDead Thank you for your reply I find it extremely intellectual!
I am greatful that you did bring info into the subject that I was not aware of.
I very well may be misunderstanding some of what you have shared as I am not able to grasp the full understanding of things the first time I read them. [as far as that goes I am sure that I never understand all things comepletely as they may be understud]!
I do see that the psycologist community defines things differently than I do! I need to learn how the psycologist community defines things so that I will seem more coherent when I am writing. My writing has enough incoherent in it all by itself. lol
When I defined my perception of a pyschological problem in my post to Jackofalltrades I defind it as psyche= mind and that logical= reasonable rationale.
I find that it is defined by the group now, even so I think that most all of us will agree that the group made some very illogical decisions 1,000 years ago when compared today standards.
I would like to think this is a + for modern society, do not get me wrong as I could probably find things that today society is doing negative as well.
I do think that a better definition could be found to the word [psychological] than what the community offers. I think that it is extremely important for society to advance and be aware of [okay] delusions for what they are.
Do not get me wrong as I do see a need for them, "I just think that there is a time when our minds should go there if we choose! "such as with death and so forth.
My question is [ Is it best for mankind to continue this day after day if they are not experiencing stress or pain]?
Should they be aware that they are thinking of things that can not be proven?
Is this the best way for mankind to advance in ethics?
I do realise that it seems natural but being that we are humans and are able to have a little more awareness of our minds than other animals, should the scientific community point out the way they see things and teach this in junior high school?
I would rather see ethics taught first but I do think this should be discussed along with it.
I do think that with minds like yours and others working hard together that we may be able to prove at least close to empirically if whether or not, "the notion that physically empirical things are better than non-physically empirical things is a truism in itself. An axiom upon which a moral code is built. It is an ethical morae that itself is not backed up with empirical proof.