Life Plan

[rapidlearner]

Hi, long time no post :D

Do you believe that we choose our direction in life or that it has already been mapped out for us?

I'm struggliing to conclude on what I believe with regards to this as I believe that most of our actions are determined from external influences but I would like to feel that Im in control of my decisions.

I guess I'm talking about free will and whether it truly exists.

[Psychotronic]

I can see my lifeplan in constantly improving common comscious and subconscious work. It is the most useful activity. :D

[Caelrie]

You chose the "plan" for this life. You mapped it out with a little guidance from your guides. And finally, you choose whether to follow it or not. It's all you.

[JoSac]

I think everything happens for a reason. IDK y but i feel like i got into this AP stuff for a ceartin reason. I think its the way it all came about, and how i learned about it.

But would agree with Caelerie on this. Because if life is all mapped out, technically you couldnt commit suicide, or get into a major car accident or purpose. Just my thoughts.

JS

[CFTraveler]

You chose the "plan" for this life. You mapped it out with a little guidance from your guides. And finally, you choose whether to follow it or not. It's all you. I'm with Caelrie on this one. What appears predetermined by external influences are predetermined by the greater 'you', even if the temporal 'you' isn't 'getting' it. I think part of our job here is to figure out what the greater 'you' is all about. Yet, the temporal 'you' can decide to do something else, and that's why the world is in the shape it is. Oops, time to change my bracelet.

[Palehorse Redivivus]

I'm with CF and Caelrie, mostly.

As of now I believe this depends largely on the consciousness and awareness level of the individual. If someone lives unconsciously then I see no reason why that would suddenly change upon death, and thus the incarnative process is pretty much a matter of being shuffled through an automatic system, where the life they get is based on what their soul is reflecting at that time. But there's no real conscious input in it, and how it actually plays out is largely a matter of luck.

Once the individual begins the process of awakening, they begin to exercise more conscious choice in the matter, not from being "allowed" by some external authority but rather mostly by learning that they can. This is where pre-life planning and guides and etc. come in. As for actually living one's life, again, I believe what goes on and how is a matter of awareness. In physical existence you've also got the complications of incarnative amnesia, and possible interference, deliberate or not, by negs and the choices of other people. So, the task is to 1. figure out that there IS some sort of purpose or reason for your being here, 2. figure out what that purpose is and 3. start moving towards it.

The next factor to consider is that although plans may be made "on the other side," once one incarnates, to a large extent all bets are off. We create a lot "on the fly" and may go off the predefined track, either due to not knowing there was a track, or by being aware and consciously choosing a different direction. And, I don't believe there's necessarily anything wrong with that; after all, it IS our life, not someone else's to decide whether we lived it the "right" way or not. In that sense there is no right or wrong; only experience.

Anyway keep in mind that I've been wrestling with this question a lot lately in light of recent experiences, I've got a lot more questions than answers and a whole lot of stuff is in the "pending" file, so anything I say on the subject should be regarded as such.

[Tom]

You chose the "plan" for this life. You mapped it out with a little guidance from your guides. And finally, you choose whether to follow it or not. It's all you.

Too bad that the "you" that chose such things no longer wants them. The "me" from even just a year ago was a total j@ck@$$.

[Caelrie]

You chose the "plan" for this life. You mapped it out with a little guidance from your guides. And finally, you choose whether to follow it or not. It's all you.

Too bad that the "you" that chose such things no longer wants them. The "me" from even just a year ago was a total j@ck@$$.
You have no idea how well I feel you on that. We can't know how much our lives will change us when we make the plans. If we knew, we wouldn't need them in the first place.

[Caelrie]

I'm with CF and Caelrie, mostly.

As of now I believe this depends largely on the consciousness and awareness level of the individual. If someone lives unconsciously then I see no reason why that would suddenly change upon death, and thus the incarnative process is pretty much a matter of being shuffled through an automatic system, where the life they get is based on what their soul is reflecting at that time. But there's no real conscious input in it, and how it actually plays out is largely a matter of luck.

Once the individual begins the process of awakening, they begin to exercise more conscious choice in the matter, not from being "allowed" by some external authority but rather mostly by learning that they can. This is where pre-life planning and guides and etc. come in. As for actually living one's life, again, I believe what goes on and how is a matter of awareness. In physical existence you've also got the complications of incarnative amnesia, and possible interference, deliberate or not, by negs and the choices of other people. So, the task is to 1. figure out that there IS some sort of purpose or reason for your being here, 2. figure out what that purpose is and 3. start moving towards it.

The next factor to consider is that although plans may be made "on the other side," once one incarnates, to a large extent all bets are off. We create a lot "on the fly" and may go off the predefined track, either due to not knowing there was a track, or by being aware and consciously choosing a different direction. And, I don't believe there's necessarily anything wrong with that; after all, it IS our life, not someone else's to decide whether we lived it the "right" way or not. In that sense there is no right or wrong; only experience.

Anyway keep in mind that I've been wrestling with this question a lot lately in light of recent experiences, I've got a lot more questions than answers and a whole lot of stuff is in the "pending" file, so anything I say on the subject should be regarded as such.
I'm with you on all that. It's a gradient process based on awareness and level of addiction. In the beginning of our incarnations we perceived our lives as being planned out for us and frog-marched along those plans and will be judged by an authoritative deity right or wrong. In the middle we perceived having a little input in the plans and the idea that it may all go terribly wrong and will be judged progress or backsliding by our guides. In the end we finally realize we were in the driver's seat all along, we have no obligation to stick to our plans and there's no judge in the end but ourselves.

[rapidlearner]

Interesting responses 8)

How do you know if you are using free will in any aspect of your life as opposed to what has already been pre-determined?

When you say 'guides' help you to map out your life... Does this include morally bad things such as peadophillia, rape or murder? Do you think people choose to do such things or do you believe that it can be mapped out for them and they do it due to external influences e.g. They are born into a family where they are abused as a child and then they grow to become an abuser?

The thing that doesn't make me believe in free will is that in every cross section of a population of society there will always be percentages that are doctors, builders, teachers, cleaners, entrepreneurs, criminals etc... and then these people fall under personality categories such as confident, shy, adventurous, boring, nice people*, horrible people* etc... You will always find similar people, no matter if they're from your home town or somewhere on the other side of the planet. Admitedly, everyone is different but I would say that is due to individual, external influences and the surroundings upon which they were brought up which contributes to their personality. I think it is impossible for any two lives to be replicated but the expericences can be similar which forms similar personalities. And it is your personality that forms your decision making process and not free will.

The thing that makes me believe in free will is that, if I wanted to, I could quit my job tomorrow, get the first flight to Tailand and soak up the sun for the rest of my life but maybe I would just be doing that to prove that free will exists and therefore, it wouldn't really be freewill. :? :?

*I make no claim to know what the definition of nice or horrible is :P

[Korpo]

How do you know if you are using free will in any aspect of your life as opposed to what has already been pre-determined?

EVERY choice you make is free will. The circumstances may have been set, but your choice remains. I incluce your emotional makeup as circumstance here, too. The body you have is such a circumstance.

You may feel your choice is not free will because you felt pressured. It is still free will, you just exercise it a certain way to avoid inconvenience. Or pain. These are circumstances. Certain key circumstances are preset for your life. Others change throught the free will of you and others. Free will exists, but it is not easy to enact it.


When you say 'guides' help you to map out your life... Does this include morally bad things such as peadophillia, rape or murder? Do you think people choose to do such things or do you believe that it can be mapped out for them and they do it due to external influences e.g. They are born into a family where they are abused as a child and then they grow to become an abuser?

IMO people might chose such lives for learning a certain lesson, to overcome a weakness in themselves by not becoming like that, by not chosing the easy way of acting out their own pain on others. I don't think that it is ever planned to become a rapist or abuser. Some bodies and emotional makeups are way harder choices in that way. Why they get chosen or assigned is hard to tell in this life. Michael Newton's "Journeys of Souls" might be an interesting read on that topic if you think this hypothesis has any merit. He postulated it on the interviewing of thousands of people in deep hypnosis about their life choices.


The thing that doesn't make me believe in free will is that in every cross section of a population of society there will always be percentages that are doctors, builders, teachers, cleaners, entrepreneurs, criminals etc... and then these people fall under personality categories such as confident, shy, adventurous, boring, nice people*, horrible people* etc... You will always find similar people, no matter if they're from your home town or somewhere on the other side of the planet. Admitedly, everyone is different but I would say that is due to individual, external influences and the surroundings upon which they were brought up which contributes to their personality. I think it is impossible for any two lives to be replicated but the expericences can be similar which forms similar personalities. And it is your personality that forms your decision making process and not free will.

No, only if you let it. It takes free will to overcome your personal limitations. Free will is there. Not enacting it is sometimes laziness, sometimes cowardice, and sometimes just plain human. To postulate that free will is not there because life can be tough is IMO just a way of denying your own responsibility for your life.


The thing that makes me believe in free will is that, if I wanted to, I could quit my job tomorrow, get the first flight to Tailand and soak up the sun for the rest of my life but maybe I would just be doing that to prove that free will exists and therefore, it wouldn't really be freewill. :? :?

"Free will" does not equal "free ride". ;) The fact that you are right now not lying on a beach in Thailand with a safe financial cushion to feed you might indicate that you planned something more challenging in your life to learn and master than just that.

Take good care,
Oliver

[Korpo]

Because if life is all mapped out, technically you couldnt commit suicide, or get into a major car accident or purpose. Just my thoughts.

Free will enables you to diverge from your life plan. I think suicide is not planned into a life. And yet you could still commit it at any time. (Please don't do it!)

Take good care,
Oliver

[Tom]

Because if life is all mapped out, technically you couldnt commit suicide, or get into a major car accident or purpose. Just my thoughts.

Free will enables you to diverge from your life plan. I think suicide is not planned into a life. And yet you could still commit it at any time. (Please don't do it!)

Take good care,
Oliver

If you must insist that we chose our lives in advance, then can you really prove that despair leading up to suicide is not simply one more possibility which has also been selected in advance ... ?

[Korpo]

The question is - what is learned?

If the purpose is to learn something, not committing suicide and facing your problems and overcome them seems to be more viable. I don't think there is anything to be learned by suicide. JMO.

I don't believe we go through all permutations mindlessly. We do not experience everything. Instead we receive finely honed lessons that help us work on our weaknesses by being offered to make better choices every time we face them. If this is true, what weakness would be overcome by suicide?

Oliver

[Tom]

The question is - what is learned?

If the purpose is to learn something, not committing suicide and facing your problems and overcome them seems to be more viable. I don't think there is anything to be learned by suicide. JMO.

I don't believe we go through all permutations mindlessly. We do not experience everything. Instead we receive finely honed lessons that help us work on our weaknesses by being offered to make better choices every time we face them. If this is true, what weakness would be overcome by suicide?

Oliver

From my point of view it is hard to justify the idea that all the major events in our lives are planned out in advance and that we do it to ourselves. I also have a problem with the idea that life is a series of lessons or even a sort of school. You will find that I am not a believer in "The Secret" or anything like that. Mostly, though, I want to know why you seem to think that suicide is always about running away from problems or giving in to weakness.

[Korpo]

I'm having the idea from Michael Newton - the lesson idea as much as the ideas about suicide.


If you must insist that we chose our lives in advance, then can you really prove that despair leading up to suicide is not simply one more possibility which has also been selected in advance ... ?

This implies that you yourself believe that suicide is chosen out of despair. Isn't that basically the same?

Oliver

[Korpo]

As far as I can remember you often expressed the idea of life being forced upon us and that certain things have to be overcome. I do no longer share that belief either. I think in certain ways I would find it as hard as you would the other way round to justify why. :)

Oliver

[Tom]

Suicide is not easy to discuss theoretically like this. I was asking you why you think it couldn't be accounted for in advance, if you believe that there is a plan for your life and a list of lessons to be learned in the process. Your answer seemed to be that there is nothing to be learned from suicide so there would be no way it could have been chosen ahead of time. Once again I stated that I don't agree that life is mapped out in advance. Okay. What if the lesson of suicide is that quitting the game before it has a chance to be played out fully is a mistake, and that it isn't a good idea to keep hitting "reset" when things seem to be completely out of control?

[rapidlearner]

Who is to say what is a lesson and what isn't a lesson. Don't all experiences (incluiding suicide) contribute to learning?

And if they do, we can't use free will to avoid learning. Thus, making all learning pre-determined no matter what it is.. you can't choose not to learn, therefore, free will does not exist in a learning context. Everyones circumstances determines what they learn, there is no choice. Even if it feels like one.

For example, If someone was born into a cult and is easily influenced by the group, sees or hears nothing else but the preaching of the cult throughout his life and one day they decide to stage a mass suicide and he joins them whole heartedly believing he is doing the right thing... The circumstances caused him to join in the suicide. Free will (if it ever existed in the first place) was eliminated by his circumstances that were predetermined.

We are all born into a circumstance. Everyones thinking is biased. That bias comes from past experiences which shape our thinking patterns which, in turn, was biased by previous experiences.

[Korpo]

For example, If someone was born into a cult and is easily influenced by the group, sees or hears nothing else but the preaching of the cult throughout his life and one day they decide to stage a mass suicide and he joins them whole heartedly believing he is doing the right thing... The circumstances caused him to join in the suicide. Free will (if it ever existed in the first place) was eliminated by his circumstances that were predetermined.

I think that is oversimplified. Even the most influenced person makes a lot of conscious decisions. Even if they are of the kind "I'm afraid so I give in".

What you basically say is a decision must be easy for you to be accepted as free will: When I don't like my life I should be allowed to lie around a beach in Thailand. If I'm in a cult I should be given a clear and easy way out of the cult. According to your reasoning that you would accept as free will. To me that is not "free will", but "free ride". You're asking not for the ability to decide and bear the consequences, but a way out of the consequences.

Let my explain what I think by laying open my assumptions:

Let's assume you incarnate multiple times. Let's assume your soul desires to evolve and overcome certain restrictions in character. Let's say your soul has had problems in multiple lives with resisting peer pressure and standing on its own. Let's further assume your soul wants to learn this lesson once and for all and choses a hard lesson.

So the soul goes - this whole scenario is taken from Michael Newton's ideas, which base on thousands of hypnotic regression cases - to a life choice, and together with guidance selects this life where circumstances bring the soul into a group cult. All the souls in this group cult have selected this situation to overcome a very strong peer pressure. At this point before incarnation the soul just desires to learn and is fully aware of its choice.

The soul gets born and selective amnesia erases most of its memory for its life time. Now the soul is faced with the imminent mass suicide of the group. The soul had some experiences in its life that might help to resists the group pressure, but also unresolved traumata that impair this. The decision is really, really hard. Going against the pressure has all kinds of negative consequences - being excluded, being rejected by the group, losing all social acceptance at once (for some people worse than dying), by believing in the doctrine of the sect the person also loses all self-respect, because its self-respect is based largely on being a "good" cult member, by following rules.

If the soul now choses suicide, it has given in - in a way. The life it chose to learn a difficult lesson might not have born as much fruit as the soul hoped. If the soul succeeds in making the hard decision, bearing responsibility for turning its own life around, it might have learned more in this life time about group pressure than in half a dozen others. In a certain sense it is a high risk gamble by the soul.

I, personally, find this scenario convincing. I have read dozens of similar scenarios in Michael Newton's books, and to me they just "feel right".

Just because the decision is hard does not mean we have no free will IMO. Sometimes people die a heroic death. Sometimes taking a hard decision means to die regardless. But to me it is free will, as long as I can decide. I can commit a capital crime tomorrow or I don't. Just because my emotional makeup makes it unlikely does not prevent me making that choice. Just because my circumstances favor a non-criminal life-style does not mean I cannot. Just because a person grew up in violent surrounding does mean the person is destined to be violent. Etc.

The key is, in my opinion is that sometimes enacting free will is just very hard. But it does exist. You can argue whether there really is a necessity for choices to be hard, if it would not be better if they were easier. Surely I would prefer that for my life, too. :)

But IMO free will exists all the time regardless of the circumstances.

Oliver

[Korpo]

What if the lesson of suicide is that quitting the game before it has a chance to be played out fully is a mistake, and that it isn't a good idea to keep hitting "reset" when things seem to be completely out of control?

Can you give me an example?

Oliver

[Caelrie]

If you must insist that we chose our lives in advance, then can you really prove that despair leading up to suicide is not simply one more possibility which has also been selected in advance ... ?
I think that's definitely possible. If a soul wanted to experience suicide, it would be necessary to map out a life that led to that end. Such a life might well be beyond the coping ability of the vast majority of people, by design.

[Korpo]

If a soul wanted to experience suicide, it would be necessary to map out a life that led to that end. Such a life might well be beyond the coping ability of the vast majority of people, by design.

Do you think there are souls who do that?

Oliver

[Caelrie]

If a soul wanted to experience suicide, it would be necessary to map out a life that led to that end. Such a life might well be beyond the coping ability of the vast majority of people, by design.

Do you think there are souls who do that?

Oliver
I do, because it's something I would do if I wanted to experience it. In fact, I probably did it somewhere along the line. What better way to understand the experience than to suffer through it? I'm not the type to let silly cultural taboos stand in my way. So I figure if I'd do it, so would some others.

[rapidlearner]

Korpo: There are two points that I wanna address: :D

1st of all, you are saying that there is no lesson to be learnt from suicide and that its a failure of such. What if suicide was inevitable to save others? Say, if a plane was hijacked and the pilot decided to crash the plane in the middle of a field rather than in a packed residential city thus, killing himself and the people on the plane. What if someone was kidnapped and was told that if he didn't kill himself, the kidnappers would kill his family?

2nd of all, The scenario about someone being born into a cult and joining them for mass suicide is not over simplified at all. Their circumstances led them to be impressionable people. You only have to research the Heavens Gate mass suicide to understand that these people genuinly thought the world was going to be destroyed and that they would join Jesus on a UFO behind a commet. They wasn't depressed or looking for an easy way out. They thoguht they were doing the right thing for their soul. Could they use free will to NOT commit suicide? No. Their past experiences and circumstances created a mind set that meant suicide was the only choice they would make. Free Will to choose not commiting suicide exists only as an illusion as they will never choose that route.

We can't escape our circumstances. Our circumstances derive from choices we make that were biased by previous cricumstances.

Oh and thirdly, I don't think you could go out and commit a capital crime tomorrow. Your mindset doesn't allow it, due to your upbring or moral stance which all derives from your past experiences. Even if you think its a possibility, its actually a fake one... Unless... external circumstances cause you to do so, which wouldn't be free will.

All our choices are biased. And our current mindset that derives from biased choices and experiences in the past will always overall the illusion of free will. It may seem like we are making choices freely but biased thinking means we're not.

I'm really starting to talk myself out of believing in free will here.

[Korpo]

2nd of all, The scenario about someone being born into a cult and joining them for mass suicide is not over simplified at all. Their circumstances led them to be impressionable people. You only have to research the Heavens Gate mass suicide to understand that these people genuinly thought the world was going to be destroyed and that they would join Jesus on a UFO behind a commet. They wasn't depressed or looking for an easy way out. They thoguht they were doing the right thing for their soul. Could they use free will to NOT commit suicide? No.

Yup, they could. Either decision was their choice. You assume these people had no doubts. I doubt that assumption. ;)


Their past experiences and circumstances created a mind set that meant suicide was the only choice they would make. Free Will to choose not commiting suicide exists only as an illusion as they will never choose that route.

There are no 100% forced circumstances. As long as you have options, there is choice. As long there is a choice, you have free will. Incredibly hard or having the choice between a rock and a hard place does not mean you have no free will. It just means that your enacting your free will will not lead to an improvement of your situation. Free will does not depend on good outcomes. Just on choices.


We can't escape our circumstances. Our circumstances derive from choices we make that were biased by previous cricumstances.

Any thing we impose on our minds in habits can be reversed. It just requires the tough choice of undergoing that reversal. That's the free will part. That's independent from the second thing you mention: We can't escape our circumstances. That's only true for external circumstances. While the world surrounding us may not be changeable, our reaction to it is in any micro-second of our existence.

All this "We can't experience our circumstances" seems to derive from behaviour-observing approach used by psychology to learn about human behaviour. The underlying assumption is that inputs A and B will lead to output C. This led to IMO narrowminded thinking that we are input/output machines slavishly reacting to external stimuli. We aren't.

This choice was made because external behaviour is the only thing easily observable, leading to all kinds of misjudging what's going on IMO. See Tart for a longer discussion of this, IIRC in "States of Consciousness".


I'm really starting to talk myself out of believing in free will here.

As long as you hold on to the premise that "free will" equals for you that choice should be easy ("free ride") in order to qualify, you will come to no other conclusion. But every time a person willfully choses a different path for their life than what their circumstances dictate you're proven wrong. Happens all the time - in real life, but not in hypothesis-land. ;)

Oliver

[CFTraveler]

And,

every time a person willfully choses a different path for their life than what their circumstances dictate they grow.
And that " sounds like a plan " to me.

[Tom]

Because it annoys me to hear people going on about big topics like free will and the lessons we are supposed to learn and the things that happen after death, I try not to go on about such things very often or for very long at a time. It seems plain to me that no one can actually really know for sure. It seems plain to me that the thing to do is to do your best with the cards you've been dealt. Ideally along the way you can help a few people, if only for the reason that doing so will make things easier for everyone involved - yourself included.

[Korpo]

Well... There are people who say they have spoken to their guides. And people who uncovered part of this life plan for themselves. I know some. This does not mean it is evidence. Not at all. But it to them it surely is.

If I think about it there may be no irrefutable proof for this. That's the belief part. There may be only subjective proof. I mean - if aliens landed tomorrow in your backyard, bringing along the president of the US and the Dalai Lama as witness, and tell you what your life plan is, you could still chose to believe they are lying, or that you are hallucinating. It would not constitute proof to you. If an entity in the astral told you, you could believe "It was just a weird dream". And if a guy on the street tells you, it could just be a weirdo. See, where I am heading? Skepticism is a very selective art. :)

That's the "consensus" part in consensus reality. We agree on what is real to us by believing the experiences of some and protocol. But do you really know they fissioned atoms or landed on the moon if you did not witness it yourself? Does a measurement curve on a computer screen prove that nuclear fission happened? A minimum amount of belief is required to accept anything IMO, even what we call objective is just an exercise in trust since we cannot know all and everything. Cannot experience everything at the same time. We believe howerver things from "trustworthy" sources that fit our own belief systems, how rationally we might construct them.

I mean nothing in physics has ever been truly proven. Things like energy conservation have just been observed. Repeatedly. If ever one person observes the opposites once in "all time", physics as we know is simply wrong. Maths fares surely better there. ;) But we chose to trust this repeated observation. We chose to trust the observations of others to benefit from their conclusions.

Oliver

[Tom]

And here I thought that those of us here were going out of our way to break the agreements which "consensus reality" have been requiring of us. My problem is when I get the feeling that in order to belong in the club I have to conform with the local noncomformists.

If you'd like I can tell you that I found a Spirit Guide who says you are wrong about everything you've ever believed and that it is my life plan to tell you how wrong you are.

[rapidlearner]

Tom I agree with everything you say apart from the being annoyed about big topics. I'm sorry they annoy you. I just like investingating the big puzzle we call 'life'... If people wana share their thoughts, than all the better. This topic, 'detrminism vs freewill' has been debated heavily amongst gifted academics for years that can't seem to come to a conclusion. Its all theories. Everyone has a differnt perspective on life and I find it interesting to hear them, whatever their background.

Korpo: I was about to address most of your paragraphs but we may end up going around in circles

I argue that all our decisions are biased and there is no escaping biasis. Hence, the option of freewill being only an illusion as we will never choose an option that isn't biased by our mindset. (like selective skeptism)

You say that if an option is there, we are free to choose it... causing freewill to exist.

Thanks for your input though, you raised some interesting points and either way, we can't escape the thought that life is what we make of it. :wink:

Adios

[Tom]

It isn't the topics which annoy me so much as seeing opinions being presented as objective fact.

[Caelrie]

It isn't the topics which annoy me so much as seeing opinions being presented as objective fact.
You mean like how an atheist feels that life after death is just an opinion?

[Tom]

It isn't the topics which annoy me so much as seeing opinions being presented as objective fact.
You mean like how an atheist feels that life after death is just an opinion?

Yes, exactly. :)

Doesn't that annoy you?

[Psychotronic]

Wrong methods of thinking and making system of opinions is a phenomenon caused by wrong understanding of consciousness and its way - intent. It is the same problem - only materialism. My life plan must be something abstract and mystical. :)

[CFTraveler]

I think this is what Tom is talking about, Psychotronic.

Wrong methods of thinking and making system of opinions is a phenomenon caused by wrong understanding of consciousness and its way - intent For example, you could try adding "In my opinion", or "In my understanding of reality", or "In my experience".
But making a sweeping statement like that sounds like you think you have all the answers, and everyone that doesn't agree is wrong. And that isn't good for the atmosphere of the forum, and can lead to flame wars.

[Caelrie]

It isn't the topics which annoy me so much as seeing opinions being presented as objective fact.
You mean like how an atheist feels that life after death is just an opinion?

Yes, exactly. :)

Doesn't that annoy you?
My point is that something you feel is an opinion might actually be a fact because you may not yet have experienced something another has. An atheist believes the afterlife is an opinion. You know its existence is fact because you can project there.

[Psychotronic]

CFTraveler:
But it isn´t only in my opinion. It is objective fact. Getting understanding of own consciousness induce improving percieving of consciousness to better work in a mind - in the second world. If we can´t imagine mind like the second world, we are making barriers in thinking.
And there are many similar viewpoints. It is objective and we can only discuss it, if you want to.

[Tom]

Experiencing something does not make it real, objective, true, or any other way of expressing that. See the way people will disagree with each other when they take turns describing an event after the fact. Yes, some observers are better trained than others. One of the things a good observer will do is to refrain from describing what things mean and instead will just stick to describing perceptions.

[CFTraveler]

CFTraveler:
But it isn´t only in my opinion. It is objective fact. Getting understanding of own consciousness induce improving percieving of consciousness to better work in a mind - in the second world. If we can´t imagine mind like the second world, we are making barriers in thinking.
And there are many similar viewpoints. It is objective and we can only discuss it, if you want to. And notice I didn't just say 'in my opinion', I also said 'In my experience', and 'In my understanding'. Objective facts do not have to be declared- the idea that they need to be pointed to is an indication that they may not be as objective as you think- In my observation.

[Psychotronic]

But you can reply on everything with a question - is it only in your opinion? Why don´t you do that? Of course, no objective fact exists.
And there are some things, that I can presume like objective, because they must be truly in almost all cases.

[Tom]

But you can reply on everything with a question - is it only in your opinion? Why don´t you do that? Of course, no objective fact exists.
And there are some things, that I can presume like objective, because they must be truly in almost all cases.

A chicken crosses the road. Is it because there is food on the other side? Is there a fox chasing the chicken? Was the road simply in the chicken's path? Is there really a chicken crossing the road or did I just imagine one so I could ask you why it crossed the equally imaginary road? It was certainly vivid enough in my mind. I could even hear the clucking and see a little dust being kicked up along the way. The chicken may even be my spirit guide coming to give me something to contribute to this thread.

[Psychotronic]

No... It is resolution of nothing, it is an answer to no question.

It is almost absolute true, what I writed. I expected a discussion or nothing. But this is like fishing in a lake with no fish.

[Tom]

My point is that I can say I experienced something and now according to the way things are done around here everyone has to believe not only what I say I experienced but also the way I chose to interpret that experience.

Whatever you experience is subjective, but the one thing which you can rely on is that you are there having a subjective experience. That's as close as you are going to get to objective - the you who watches, the observer, the Atman. Getting caught up in subjective experiences and identifying with them is the mistake. If you do that you might as well spend a dozen lifetimes trying to see why my imaginary chicken crosses imaginary roads. If you don't like that, maybe counting sheep is more to your liking. Maybe you can work on the "which comes first, the chicken or the egg" thing. The possibilities for distractions you can get caught up in are limitless, but if you find your Self that's all that matters.

A day spent fishing at an empty lake is still better than a day at work. It is a good excuse to have a few drinks and relax and to get away from the routine.

[Psychotronic]

Okay, but it is the philosophical question - knowledge comes only from experience, knowledge comes from higher principles. I am sorry, but theory, that every knowledge comes from experience is really laughable, it is theory in the opposite of consciousness, thought form system and many other possibilities.

I would say, that the text i wrote came not only from my experience. The second thing - it is very difficult to imagine, how to experience problem of global society. I must be consciousness of all people to do that. But on the second side there is something truly, if I am thinking about something I am experiencing it from some viewpoints.

So, why to discuss about experiences, if we are discussing something, what depends not on experience?

[Tom]

The awareness that experiences pass through does not depend on them. Awareness can and should be turned back on itself.

[Psychotronic]

What is your opinion to mindset and thinking of global society at all? We are talking about something with no point. Take it from the opposite side. 8)

[Tom]

"Global society" is just an idea. Try being involved in the lives of individual people. It is far more satisfying, and the influence you can have will spread out to everyone else anyway. Someone came up with the idea that if you know person A who knows person B who knows person C and so on, then you are actually connected to everyone in the world this way in something like only 6 steps.

I think you are getting it. I'm trying to say that getting wrapped up in mind games or chasing after experience for the sake of experience is a waste of time. Change your awareness and you can change your world.

[rapidlearner]

Tom; I feel you are saying that we should be skeptical of everyones interpretation of an experience as we could experience it differently and interpret it with our own slant of biasis. Which is why NOT saying 'IMO' or 'I believe; etc... annoys you.

If that is what you are saying... I kind of agree with you.

But You only know what a Road, a chicken and crossing is due to the external, objective fact. The objective fact allows you to recreate it in your mind. Just cause you recreate them in your mind doesn't mean that they don't exist externally objectively. Now if your conscious enviroment consisted of spirit guides and they were as real as the computer screen you're looking at now... would you class that as fact or interpretation of spirit guides?

Aren't we all vitctims of bias opinion forming based on our experiences? Usually our opinions are based on what we consciously percieve as fact not consciously create in our mind. OBE's only seem real to me when they are as conscious as I am now typing this (which I have had.) If I'm conscious, (and not imaging or dreaming) then that has to be fact to me, not interpretation. Just cause its not objective fact doesn't stop it from being so.

Isn't the skill of seasoned, pro OBE'rs (lol I don't know what else to call you guys) the way in which they can distinguish between imagination created by consciousness and external experiences while being fully conscious?

Also, if awareness turns back on itself, isn't that like putting two mirrors infront of each other getting infinitly nowhere? Wouldn't it be better to project one mirror outwardly, experiencing life to the fulliest.

The 6 steps you talk of is called "six degrees of seperation" and these days it is regarde as an urban myth. Serious world changes such as revolution or war comes from mass communication. Its hard to start a revolution or war by just telling individuals your opinions.

[Tom]

Going through the motions of adding words like "in my opinion" seems pointless to me. :)

What I am looking for is less of a tendency to jump to conclusions and to defend them to the death.

[Psychotronic]

Tom: Yeah, :D finally you said the same thing, what I said.

Change your awareness and you can change your world. Change your awareness, consciousness, psychic working, mind - it is only playing with terms. Principle is the same thing I said before: People mostly understand to their consciousness wrong, they understand their own world wrong, because they don´t know, that it is a world at all. Global society like an idea... everything we summarized, is only idea - everything is summary of something another, so everything is an idea... But you know, what I mean by this term. If I want to make some view to whole population, I must notice the first thing - opinion of most people and the biggest parts of population. If I know their thinking, there is no problem in my description of them. If I know possibilities of thinking they don´t know, obviously it is something like ace-card for me. :D

And theme "in my opinion" is really something for very long discussions. And the second thing is: "Is here anybody, who was ready to believe every word in this forum???" :wink: Do you want to provide it by telepathy? :D

[CFTraveler]

Going through the motions of adding words like "in my opinion" seems pointless to me. But it's not, or should not be a 'going through the motions' act. If you don't get this then I have no more to say about it.

[JoSac]

I think we have gotten off topic on this thread.

Im thinking life lock.....

JS

[Tom]

Going through the motions of adding words like "in my opinion" seems pointless to me. But it's not, or should not be a 'going through the motions' act. If you don't get this then I have no more to say about it.

My rising sign is Aries. Such modesty does not come naturally to me and I don't expect it from anyone else. I do get it, however, up to the point where you make people use the phrases like "in my opinion" or "I believe" when it might not sound natural from them.

[CFTraveler]

Going through the motions of adding words like "in my opinion" seems pointless to me. But it's not, or should not be a 'going through the motions' act. If you don't get this then I have no more to say about it.

My rising sign is Aries. Such modesty does not come naturally to me and I don't expect it from anyone else. I do get it, however, up to the point where you make people use the phrases like "in my opinion" or "I believe" when it might not sound natural from them. I'm not saying that they have to say it, if they believe it. What I'm saying is that when someone comes over and talks about what is essentially a subjective observation and/or interpretation, or belief, and declares it to be fact, or worse, tells people what to do according to it, they should expect to be challenged on it. And yes, it annoys me to no end, and it has nothing to do with modesty. And BTW, I'm a Leo, and not exactly 'miss modesty' either, and feeling the need to challenge something that I might just even agree with is part of my annoyance with that.

[Korpo]

Whatever you experience is subjective, but the one thing which you can rely on is that you are there having a subjective experience. That's as close as you are going to get to objective - the you who watches, the observer, the Atman. Getting caught up in subjective experiences and identifying with them is the mistake.

Actually, the observer is even more subjective, not objective. I think the objective view is the illusion, the subjective view can at least be correct sometimes. If you tune in to the observer in your mind, to me that is a subjective as it can be. Objective is something we agree upon by sharing it with others. Tuning into the observer is tuning into yourself, not into others. Why should that be "objective"? No one is there, within you, to second your perceptions. Therefore they are not objective but subjective reality.

rapidlearner - Free will exists because I decided it does. :D

Oliver

[Psychotronic]

Yeah and what do you do, if I say, that an Universe is only a big subject? :D
All smaller subjects have to finding objectivity, but it doesn´t exist. The only objective thing is our pure consciousness, everything going out of consciousness is getting smaller in a scale of objectivity. For example, it is a thought - conscious thought. If a thought is close to consciousness, it can be more objective. The main "joke" is the fact, that no thought can be absolutely close to consciousness, because this thought must be consciousness, so it can´t be close to consciousness. :D It can´t be able to see itself, only be able to see another thought.

[rapidlearner]

With regards to objective and subjective experiences... I think its important that we don't devalue objective experiences. They are there for a reason. Simply that we all have a mind that has the ability to observe and at the same time, create. We rely upon this filtering system to make sure the information we receive can be put into the right category (observed or created).

There is also this cunning little device in the human mind called 'the ability to lie'. So we also rely on objective evidence to rule out other peoples lies. Without objectivity, criminals would find it easier to get aways with crimes.

All experiences occur within the mind, whether it be an illusion or sitting next to someone in a football stadium amongst thousands of people all witnessing and observing the same thing. Without being the subjective observer, we wouldn't be able to experience it individually but without objective evidence (e.g. team A beat team B 3-0) it would make for a very messy spectator experience amongst fellow humans.

Objectivity brings order to this world which is why it is and should remain to be valued.






rapidlearner - Free will exists because I decided it does. :D

Oliver

haha. No. You are biased as its part of your belief system. Your biasis will always win - therefore, you wasn't actually free to decide. :lol: That would have worked so much better if you said "free will exists because I decided it does NOT exist." But then you would have been in a pickle!

[Psychotronic]

:D Objectivity is useful in considering subjective opinions. But objectivity is subjective opinion too, because of we haven´t anything objective we didn´t create for us. So, only mathematics is objective ... with numbers. :D There are some things we can´t measure in numbers and there is a philosophy to resolve them.

[Caelrie]

haha. No. You are biased as its part of your belief system. Your biasis will always win - therefore, you wasn't actually free to decide. :lol: That would have worked so much better if you said "free will exists because I decided it does NOT exist." But then you would have been in a pickle!

I can't agree with that at all. I've had my beliefs and biases exposed and shattered way too many times to believe they'll always win. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not shackled by my beliefs and biases anymore.

[Tom]

haha. No. You are biased as its part of your belief system. Your biasis will always win - therefore, you wasn't actually free to decide. :lol: That would have worked so much better if you said "free will exists because I decided it does NOT exist." But then you would have been in a pickle!

I can't agree with that at all. I've had my beliefs and biases exposed and shattered way too many times to believe they'll always win. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not shackled by my beliefs and biases anymore.

You mean that you believe that your beliefs do not have a tight grip on you? :)

[Caelrie]

haha. No. You are biased as its part of your belief system. Your biasis will always win - therefore, you wasn't actually free to decide. :lol: That would have worked so much better if you said "free will exists because I decided it does NOT exist." But then you would have been in a pickle!

I can't agree with that at all. I've had my beliefs and biases exposed and shattered way too many times to believe they'll always win. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not shackled by my beliefs and biases anymore.

You mean that you believe that your beliefs do not have a tight grip on you? :)
:)

Nah. I'm the type of person who doesn't really have a belief system at all and I have no problem changing my mind when new evidence shows up.

[rapidlearner]

Nah. I'm the type of person who doesn't really have a belief system at all and I have no problem changing my mind when new evidence shows up.

"when new evidence shows up" is an external bias and reshapes your mindset. That is not free will to choose how to think. Both your statements above are purely beliefs. We live our lives through our beliefs. If you believe in "x" and someone comes along with convincing evidence that "x" is wrong, the seed of doubt is planted in your mind and there is no escaping that seed of doubt. If you can't escape the seed of doubt, there was no free will to choose whether or not the seed of doubt was placed in your mind. How big the seed of doubt grows depends on what you are exposed to. Alternatively, the seed of doubt can be evaporated if you encounter new evidence to support your previous belief. Therefore, you are not controling your beliefs, your experiences are.

Every experience shapes the tree of our belief system that started as a seed when born. We can't choose what we believe in, our past experiences present bias towards the way we think presently.

We are shackled to our past experiences which are in control of our emotions. The illusion of choice makes us FEEL free (which is all that matters I suppose). Just because we don't know the future, doesn't mean we choose the future. The only thing that exists about freewill is the illusion of choice. The illusion exists for sure.

[Korpo]

We are shackled to our past experiences which are in control of our emotions. The illusion of choice makes us FEEL free (which is all that matters I suppose). Just because we don't know the future, doesn't mean we choose the future. The only thing that exists about freewill is the illusion of choice. The illusion exists for sure.

You present this as fact and I know for fact this is wrong. I have experienced the use of meditation as a tool to exactly remove those "shackles". The moment these limitations are gone, free will can be exerted to a bigger degree.

Removing emotional limitations and learning to exert more free will and live with its consequences is a vital experience, IMO. Of course you can also chose to not do that, and that is free will, too, even if you then limit the range of choices in this matter in the future.

Of course, since you happen to believe in overpowering circumstances, what could convince you? ;)

Oliver

[Caelrie]

Nah. I'm the type of person who doesn't really have a belief system at all and I have no problem changing my mind when new evidence shows up.

"when new evidence shows up" is an external bias and reshapes your mindset. That is not free will to choose how to think. Both your statements above are purely beliefs. We live our lives through our beliefs. If you believe in "x" and someone comes along with convincing evidence that "x" is wrong, the seed of doubt is planted in your mind and there is no escaping that seed of doubt. If you can't escape the seed of doubt, there was no free will to choose whether or not the seed of doubt was placed in your mind. How big the seed of doubt grows depends on what you are exposed to. Alternatively, the seed of doubt can be evaporated if you encounter new evidence to support your previous belief. Therefore, you are not controling your beliefs, your experiences are.

Every experience shapes the tree of our belief system that started as a seed when born. We can't choose what we believe in, our past experiences present bias towards the way we think presently.

We are shackled to our past experiences which are in control of our emotions. The illusion of choice makes us FEEL free (which is all that matters I suppose). Just because we don't know the future, doesn't mean we choose the future. The only thing that exists about freewill is the illusion of choice. The illusion exists for sure.
Actually I think you're just taking a stroll through the relativity park. Nothing means anything, blah blah blah.

[Caelrie]

We are shackled to our past experiences which are in control of our emotions. The illusion of choice makes us FEEL free (which is all that matters I suppose). Just because we don't know the future, doesn't mean we choose the future. The only thing that exists about freewill is the illusion of choice. The illusion exists for sure.

You present this as fact and I know for fact this is wrong. I have experienced the use of meditation as a tool to exactly remove those "shackles". The moment these limitations are gone, free will can be exerted to a bigger degree.

Removing emotional limitations and learning to exert more free will and live with its consequences is a vital experience, IMO. Of course you can also chose to not do that, and that is free will, too, even if you then limit the range of choices in this matter in the future.

Of course, since you happen to believe in overpowering circumstances, what could convince you? ;)

Oliver
I agree. Emotions are shackles you can take off whenever you decide to do it. It's not even that hard.

[rapidlearner]

Of course, since you happen to believe in overpowering circumstances, what could convince you? ;)

Oliver

I could ask you the same question and exchange "overpowering circumstances" with free will.

We are shackled to our emotions as much as we are shackled to life. To choose to be emotion free is impossible. Even in meditation, nuerons spark and produce the emotion of calm or happiness or whatever. If I posted a video of someone being murdered... An emotion will be stirred and you can't escape that. Depending on your personality you might find it repulsing or might be one of those sick individuals that actually like it. You have no free will to be emotion free from external experiences.

You guys just don't like the word "shackles" so lets change it to infused. Like beautiful marinated comida! Cause words mean everything and nothing... blah blah blah

[Korpo]

We are shackled to our emotions as much as we are shackled to life. To choose to be emotion free is impossible. Even in meditation, nuerons spark and produce the emotion of calm or happiness or whatever. If I posted a video of someone being murdered... An emotion will be stirred and you can't escape that. Depending on your personality you might find it repulsing or might be one of those sick individuals that actually like it.

Again factually wrong. It has been shown that experienced meditators can easily let go of that emotional reaction. While an average person has a certain period of being influenced, the meditator has a peak, and then it levels back to where it was before. The system has released the "extra-ordinary" event.

So this reaction is actually controllable.


You have no free will to be emotion free from external experiences.

This definition is misleading. Free will is the ability to chose in decisions in general. It is not equal to being free of emotions or being absolutely free of influences. In other words I do not accept your current definition at all, nor do I accept your demand for absolutes. Nice rhetoric trick, though. ;)

Free will exists to a degree, and the degree varies. The degree can be increased with measures like meditation. There are schools of meditation that believe "enlightenment" is the equivalent of removing emotional attachment to a degree where only free will remains.

Oliver

[ButterflyWoman]

To choose to be emotion free is impossible.

I agree with that. It's also impossible to remain thought-free. However, we can learn how to observe emotions without reacting to them or being sucked in by them, and we can learn to do the same with our thoughts.

Emotions just are. They are not you, they are not who you are. You can get to a point where you can observe your emotions and experience them and yet not be particularly influenced by them. You feel angry, yes, but you don't have to react to that anger as if it actually means anything. You can choose to just let it pass and not get involved with it.

That's true of all emotions, by the way. Frustration, fear, you name it. You may well feel it, but you don't have to BELIEVE it. It's just an emotion. You can choose what you do or don't do with it.

And I say this as someone who spent most of my life truly shackled to some very dysfunctional and debilitating emotions, panic attacks, post traumatic stress flashbacks, you name it. It takes a lot of work, and while I certainly agree that it's not possible to be free of emotions, you can gain mastery of them.

I claim no such perfected mastery over all of my emotions, although I have gotten the upper hand on the panic attacks and the post traumatic stress disorder and, for the most part, the anger; I'm still working on the rest of them, and I know I'll gain full mastery with enough practice. I hate being controlled, especially when it's within my power to gain mastery over the thing that has enslaved me. ;)

Oh, it's also possible to gain mastery over your own thoughts, although, as with the emotions, it takes a fair bit of work and a lot of practice. (Nope, I haven't perfected that, either, but I've had some success with it, so I know it's just a matter of time.)

[Caelrie]

Of course, since you happen to believe in overpowering circumstances, what could convince you? ;)

Oliver

I could ask you the same question and exchange "overpowering circumstances" with free will.

We are shackled to our emotions as much as we are shackled to life. To choose to be emotion free is impossible. Even in meditation, nuerons spark and produce the emotion of calm or happiness or whatever. If I posted a video of someone being murdered... An emotion will be stirred and you can't escape that. Depending on your personality you might find it repulsing or might be one of those sick individuals that actually like it. You have no free will to be emotion free from external experiences.

You guys just don't like the word "shackles" so lets change it to infused. Like beautiful marinated comida! Cause words mean everything and nothing... blah blah blah
The point isn't to be emotion-free. Why would you want that? The point is to get past letting your emotions cloud your reason. That's not really that hard.

[CFTraveler]

Comida! Mmmmm.......
http://65.214.37.88/ts?t=3076517125576385181

[rapidlearner]

mmm jamon... I take it your not a vegetarian CFtraveler? lol

korpo: If you look at your last post, your basically saying that free will only exists in enlightened meditators. "The average person" does not practice that type of concentration so it would be fair to say they are not enlightened, therefore not having freewill. There would also be an argument that external circumstances cause the person to meditate in the first place i.e. they don't have free will to decide to do it.

To sum up... the real paradox of free will/determinism is that free will can exist only in a determined universe. In order to exercise our free will, our actions must have the potential to effect the outcome of events. Our actions cannot effect an event outcome unless there is a cause-effect relationship. Cause-effect is determinism.

Olderwiser/caelrie: emotion sometimes distorts critical thought, but also strengthens and improves it. Logic is an engine of production which functions more productively when it is carefully melded with feelings like empathy for other points of view or with courageous and creative thinking. All reasoning contains emotion. We are not free to choose which emotion will asist reasoning even if its not the same emotion that we decide not to act on. Our emotions are shaped by our past experiences which we can't escape.

However, I must say that I'm not comfortable with determinism. I feel kind of low defending it. But I don't know if thats a survival mechanism built into my DNA or spiritual intuition. Detatching from emotions and then deciding how to act seems like the closest thing to free will to me (even if its not) and I feel kinda happy with that.

[Tom]

You ARE your karma. Change yourself, change your karma.

[CFTraveler]

mmm jamon... I take it your not a vegetarian CFtraveler? lol Not lately- I go back and forth with that.

[journyman161]

(It's Inflation - we don't have 2 cents pieces any more... :))
There appears to be a need to qualify just what emotions are. Perhaps it is best addressed by looking at the event-reaction cycle.

There is a stimulus. It doesn't matter what it is because it doesn't exist for us until it reaches our senses. But eventually, at the speed of light, the speed of sound, or the speed of gravity, it impinges on our senses. This causes the impinged sense organ to react. These sense organs are cells & they react by causing a chemical change that allows a small electrical impulse to leap across a gap to the next cell. The domino effect leads the impulse up to the brain stem & so into the first of 3 brain levels.

The 3 brains do different things; it has been speculated that they are symptomatic of our evolution - that each step up towards sapience 'layered' new functions on the old structure. As the impulse progresses through these structures, the content is associated with other memories with base survival memories being first accessed. It is possible to react to the event from this level. In fact, under stimuli containing known danger factors, it's recently been shown we can react from further down the body, but that's beside the issue here. In times when the 'event' brings obvious danger, we can react very rapidly, using learned responses to get out of danger.

Then memories of less traumatic times are sorted to find associations. If the situation isn't immediately life threatening, emotions are attached at this level - the associations we have, based on life experiences, cause chemical alterations within the brain chemistry & peptides wash through the system, 'colouring' the initial perception. Thus, a few words, innocuous in themselves, can bring blinding rage or overwhelming love.

Thus far we haven't gone much further than what the higher animals experience. (MRI is a lovely tool) Maybe humans have better memories or better associative processes, but dogs, cats (to an extent) apes & cetaceans all run through these processes. What makes us human is the next step. What is meant to occur is that the entire package, emotions, impulse & associations, is meant to then be looked at by the Being, the Self or the 'I' who sits inside making decisions. This is the step that many people never or rarely achieve - the dispassionate look at an event (or the perceptions of an event) the weighing all the factors, then the decision as to how to react to it.

This step doesn't require one to be a high-class meditator, nor even particularly trained. Both those things would help because they provide a focus on the higher level brain functions or empower the central self as the master of the life, but anyone can teach themselves to pause when emotion hits & ask themselves why am I feeling this? That's is the key to free will, whether or not the Universe is determined.

Without perfect knowledge &/or prognostication of some kind, the Universe could easily be predetermined & we'd never know it. The best we can do is use our experience & knowledge, our emotions & logic, as a package to work out, as best we know, what outcome will follow from a given action. If there are events or factors outside our knowledge that change the outcome, then we learn & make new (& hopefully better) decisions that take the new knowledge into account.

Emotions are a tool, one that, pre-sapience, provided a chance for life forms to react faster according to their history. It was a survival factor that provided context for things that happen. It can still provide context, but in our complex environment, & with the likelihood that as individuals, most of us have had traumatic events in the early years that shape how we react to things, we need to exercise our higher functions.

Emotions rely on the A=A calculation - the 'This event has similar characteristics to that past event so therefore the reaction that enabled survival last time will work again' assumption. What being able to pause to evaluate allows, (rather than react according to the emotional content) is the enacting of new solutions, the design of a life so that the events of the past do not fully determine the future, or even the present.

It's not about controlling emotions - that may or may not be the province of enlightened masters - it's about making sure your emotions don't control you! It's about making your life as much a product of your rational choices as it can be.

And forgiving yourself when you make the poorer choice.

[Psychotronic]

It seems like you are saying emotions are only circumstantial product of a mind. Do you know, what we can do only with dialectic logic? We can ONLY DIE. Do you think our mind is dialectic? Our mind has dialectic systems depending on logic and calculating, but the METHOD we use to work with them is very far from dialectic thinking. Higher processes are manipulating with pure consciousness and other phenomenons we know nothing about them. Emotions are something more than pure logic, they can depend on logic, but we can´t working with them by logic. I discussed something about "animal emotions". It seems like you think we have the same emotions as animals. Emotions are maybe an anomaly, but they are anomaly improving conscious abilities with abnormal success, if we want to do the same thing with logic, we can do nothing, because we can understand nothing. Emotions are a part of principle of understanding. You can never fully understand to something abstract only with logic, it has thousands disadvantages(time, scale, expanding tendency, flexibility etc...).

[journyman161]

It seems like you are saying emotions are only circumstantial product of a mind.Emotionas aren't actually part of the mind at all, unless you count brain & mind as the same thing. Emotions are very strictly brain-products & have been tracked & described & can be seen operating in real time in MRI's.
Do you know, what we can do only with dialectic logic? We can ONLY DIE.That's a touch harsh & to be honest, I don't see how I've even referred to dialectical logic. My post deals with how we should use emotions & where some go wrong with the process. Stating that we can only die from any kind of logic shows you have some kind of bug on the subject. It doesn't mean it applies at all to what I say.
Do you think our mind is dialectic? Our mind has dialectic systems depending on logic and calculating, but the METHOD we use to work with them is very far from dialectic thinking. Higher processes are manipulating with pure consciousness and other phenomenons we know nothing about them.First, if we know nothing about them then you are on shaky fground in panning what I have to say. Higher processes are something about which we can theorise but until someone comes up with a working model & definition for consciousness, making such adamant statements about what it is & how it works is a touch premature.
Emotions are something more than pure logic, they can depend on logic, but we can´t working with them by logic.Actually, emotions are less than logic - they come from the older more primitive parts of us - logic is an invention of Mind, not nature. It has brought us a long way & while it may not be perfect, nor even the best way to live our lives, it certainly provides a better world than living on emotion. eg. today I was out travelling & a pair of drivers decided that I had offended them by not getting out of the way while they were drag racing. Emotions said to go after them, to find a way to make them pay, to (in extreme cases) kill & hurt to ensure they got what is coming to them. Logic said it wouldn't work, it would cause more trouble than any possible satisfaction, & that the life of my wife beside me was worth 1000 of them. So I let it go & spent a few miles calming myself & restoring my peace of mind. Emotions are not good rulers; nor are they meant to control us. All the masters of whom I've read or heard & all the philosophies of which I've read all state that first we have to get control over our emotions & only then can we begin to progress to better lives.
I discussed something about "animal emotions". It seems like you think we have the same emotions as animals.Animals do have emotions & near as we can tell, many of them are identical to ours. Some may be more primitive in their expression or have a lesser range, but anyone who has lived with a dog, or followed the research into primates or dolphins would see that what we call emotions certainly exist within the animal world. [/quote]
Emotions are maybe an anomaly, but they are anomaly improving conscious abilities with abnormal success, if we want to do the same thing with logic, we can do nothing, because we can understand nothing. Emotions are a part of principle of understanding. You can never fully understand to something abstract only with logic, it has thousands disadvantages(time, scale, expanding tendency, flexibility etc...).Again, you seem to have some kind of prejudice against logic, & yet the bad things in our lives come from those who will not control their emotions but instead give in to them & react without thought to the things, real or imagined, that they see being done to them. And interestingly, those not in control of their emotions always see things as being done TO them & rarely have the perspective to see their own part in their lives.

Emotions don't improve any conscious ability until they are under control - if we simply react to emotions there isn't actually any space for anything conscious to happen, unless it's regret once we harm or destroy those around us because of a flash of rage. You may denigrate logic but logic is what tells me that you have your own PoV & are entitled to express it, that lets me realise that those around me have a right to live their lives how they wish & not have to follow what I think is right - emotions tell me otherwise.

I'd be interested to hear your definition for dialectic & what you think constitutes a dialectical process. I think maybe it is undeserving of such disdain.

[Caelrie]

Emotionas aren't actually part of the mind at all, unless you count brain & mind as the same thing. Emotions are very strictly brain-products & have been tracked & described & can be seen operating in real time in MRI's.
I can't even remotely agree with that. I had an NDE, meaning no brain activity at all, and I still felt emotions just fine.

[journyman161]

We may be talking of different things.

Behaviour patterns may easily hang over into the astral because they become part of the being. But here we are talking about emotions experienced in the body & the peptide rush of strong emotion is well mapped. If emotion was of the higher beingness, humans would get into far less trouble. And you have only to think of the last time something sparked strong emotion to realise how difficult it is for the rational being to interrupt the process.

Note I am not saying beings do not feel emotion, just that the expression of emotion in a body is a purely physical reaction to perceived events & the associations made. We don't experience something & think 'Oh I should feel annoyance at that' - we feel annoyance & then wonder why. (or just react by lashing out at the perceived source & find out later they meant nothing at all like we thought they meant.)

What occurs in astral or NDE isn't yet sufficiently well described for me to comment on what goes on during one.

[Psychotronic]

Did you read my post in meditation thread? I was saying, that animals have emotions, it is a sure thing. You can´t think, that I am fool in this way. But what is the TYPE of emotions they have? Yeah, primitive emotions to know, what is good and what is wrong.(something hurts) It is really LESS than logic animals use. But human has something more, he has abstract emotions. For example I know the state of our population with all problems and social anomalies. What I am doing, am I using my logic? am I using abstract emotions? it is sure thing. Logic give me an impulse to do something, I know, that it is right like 1+1=2. Somebody ask me for my opinion to society and I must use logic, if I want to know - it is good to answer him, or it is wrong. It is dialectic, like calculating with number values. But if I want to immediately get wide view to society and its problems and I want to immedietely scatter informations and opinions, I must use abstract emotions in this case or I can some hours giving my informations to unity with poor logic. Abstract emotions-views is something provided by subconsciousness, it is sure thing, that subconsciousness has logic, of course. But the main fact is, that I have no possibility to use logic of subconsciousness or its logic systems, so it isn´t logic for me, it is more than logic, I have not to thinking and considering about that, I simply know it and I can see this view like it is entire part of my logic. It seems like entire part of logic, but we can´t calculate it, because it is a work for subconsciousness, it can do it immediately, we never can do it with logic in fully awake state. If I want to have abstract view, I must use more than logic, because I want to have product of logic without using logic. I can use logic only to have a view, but not to calculate views. It can take me some hours by logic, I can do it immediately with abstract methods.

Can you imagine your life with no emotions, only with logic?? Whole this life is only a big death. We need our emotions like intent, and like system of methods of thinking. Primitive emotions come from primitive(old) parts of brain, abstract emotions come from abstract-improved parts of brain-mind. Can I say that simplier? Very important thing I forget, you must be "healthily" sensible to feel what I am saying, you must know how to work with emotions to get knowledge etc. In another case my words are pointless.

[journyman161]

Did you read my post in meditation thread? I was saying, that animals have emotions, it is a sure thing. You can´t think, that I am fool in this way.Be calm; I don't think you're a fool in any way or I wouldn't be talking to you. I am having trouble understanding a bit of what you are saying. It may be language difficulties or perhaps we have different concepts going on. For example...
But what is the TYPE of emotions they have? Yeah, primitive emotions to know, what is good and what is wrong.(something hurts) It is really LESS than logic animals use. But human has something more, he has abstract emotions.What are these abstract emotions? Are you talking about (to use a biblical context) the Knowledge of Good & Evil? The kind of sense that something is right or wrong when you do or say it? That could easily be more to do with experience & association than with emotions. I'm not sure but I think you're confusing emotions with feelings. Feelings can come from mental processes that are related to experience & memory, whereas this conversation began with talking about how people react emotionally to events that occur outside themselves.
And animals (some of them anyway) experience the higher emotions as well - there are numerous instances of dogs sacrificing themselves for their owners. If that isn't love, I am not sure what might constitute Love.

For example I know the state of our population with all problems and social anomalies. What I am doing, am I using my logic? am I using abstract emotions? it is sure thing.Sorry, but I don't understand this part - are you saying you have a feeling about the state of society & this feeling comes from emotions? I think it is more an internal thing & is based on your knowledge & experience of life & the people you've met & heard. The feeling doesn't come from emotion, it comes from the associations - we know from dreaming & from imagination studies that the mind 'relives' memories & they can have similar effects in the brain to the original events.
Logic give me an impulse to do something, I know, that it is right like 1+1=2. Somebody ask me for my opinion to society and I must use logic, if I want to know - it is good to answer him, or it is wrong. It is dialectic, like calculating with number values.I think you may be confusing the meaning of dialectic - dialectic is to do with opposing theses, a statement of a situation or theory that is countered by its opposite but then works to resolution via a compromise of opposites.
But if I want to immediately get wide view to society and its problems and I want to immedietely scatter informations and opinions, I must use abstract emotions in this case or I can some hours giving my informations to unity with poor logic. Abstract emotions-views is something provided by subconsciousness, it is sure thing, that subconsciousness has logic, of course. But the main fact is, that I have no possibility to use logic of subconsciousness or its logic systems, so it isn´t logic for me, it is more than logic, I have not to thinking and considering about that, I simply know it and I can see this view like it is entire part of my logic. It seems like entire part of logic, but we can calculate it, because it is a work for subconsciousness, it can do it immediately, we never can do it with logic in fully awake state. If I want to have abstract view, I must use more than logic, because I want to have product of logic without using logic. I can use logic only to have a view, but not to calculate views. It can take me some hours by logic, I can do it immediately with abstract methods.Sorry mate, I find this confusing again. I think you're saying that using logic is a step by step process & so to decide something or form an opinion may take a long time, where it is possible to arrive at a conclusion almost instantly rather than go the step by step route. This is called intuition & isn't emotion. A guy called Edward de Bono named it as Lateral Thinking & there are processes we can use to stimulate the flow of intuitive thought - but they aren't particularly emotive processes.

Now I think of it, I read back & I think you may be talking more about Intuition than Emotion. If so, I agree entirely - there are times when logic fails & intuition can work better. But from my PoV, there are very rarely times when relying solely on emotion brings a reasonable result - emotion modified by reason is what (to me) makes us human.


Can you imagine your life with no emotions, only with logic?? Whole this life is only a big death. We need your emotions like intent, and like system of methods of thinking. Primitive emotions come from primitive(old) parts of brain, abstract emotions come from abstract-improved parts of brain-mind. Can I say that simplier? Very important thing I forget, you must be "healthily" sensible to feel what I am saying, you must know how to work with emotions to get knowledge etc. In another case my words are pointless.Perhaps you could tell me what you consider to be primitive or abstract emotions? I'm not in the camp of those who claim everything is chemicals & brain processes - I think if I was this wouldn't be a site I'd frequent. But from science it is clear that the base emotions do arise from chemical changes - if I am understanding what you are saying, the virtues (abstract emotions like honour & love) aren't body emotions at all & are not provoked from external events but rather from internal reaction & experiences. That is, in the process I described earlier, they come along after the primitive brain has passed along the emotional coloured perceptions & only when the reasoning mind has had a chance to review the 'event' perception. That is why a person can hit someone they love in reaction to a momentary rage - the 'higher' or abstract feelings don't get a chance to moderate the reaction - the rage comes & they lash out & only after they hit does the 'love' come along & bring shame.

[Psychotronic]

I am confusing, because english is my secondary language. Science can explain emotions in any way, but science has one problem. This problem is consciousness, we can´t explain it and we can only discuss. Consciousness is a form for all thoughts, emotions and everything what can have conscious character. So consciousness must be the highest principle. It isn´t only matter, but science can explain some emotions like action of matter. OK, they can have material part, but the part of emotions we consciously percieve is something without matter, it is something higher, it can be percieving matter, but it doesn´t depend on matter.

For example: I have had an experience I described as "Oneness with universe", it was some type of mystical experience. How could I achieve that?? I didn´t using logic, I didn´t calculating how to achieve that step by step like in mathematics. I was meditating, so I was using abstract emotions. In my experience I thought I knew EVERYTHING in this moment. I consciously got some thought - for example "matter" - and I got the second thought spontaneously, but it wasn´t normal thought - it was describing matter in all its possibilities, I had an impression I know everything about matter now. What is this thought? Can it be only with pure logic? No, it was an abstract emotion like a form for wide understanding. If I want to do an analysis, I can use logic, but if I want to continue in mystical experience I must use abstract emotions, resp. I can´t lose this emotion, it is possible with using logic. So, mystical experiences are only an EXTREME form of using abstract emotions, but we are daily using abstract emotions. They aren´t so strong, we can only make them stronger, if we are playing with them - meditating. Animals can´t do that. We can discuss, that animals are able to meditate. It is true, but they can´t do that consciously, because it is possible only with abstract emotions. So, they can "meditate" unconsciously like most of people. We(humans) have improved logic and informatical systems too, of course. But our abstract emotions are the ACE-card in our being. I can say, that abstract emotions in normal life are something like half-mystical views.

Dialectic is something materialistic. It is a unity of methods we can use to moving in "dialectical net". 1+1=2 is dialectical net with three objects. In dialectical net we can use ONLY analysis and synthesis. It is Aristotle´s precise method, but it was accomplished, that this system isn´t enough to study pure being. So it is similar case like our logic and emotions. Aristotle used only logic and he realised it isn´t enough too late.

[journyman161]

OK psychotonic, I think we actually agree, except what you call 'Abstract emotions' I call 'Awareness' & perhaps, something like Oneness or Realisation.

What brought me into the conversation was the comments about being shackled by emotion, & for that, I point to my explanation - those are the emotions that 'shackle' people, not the more enlightened moments of growth you talk about.

[Psychotronic]

I have beautiful obvious example: My phrasing in english language is terrible, because I use only logic to write something in English. :) Any grammatical mistakes have no relationship to sense of my posts still it is a logic too. Maybe I use too much imaginary in some posts. :)