There are states that have been actively attempting to disarm the populace for years and this bill represents a major step toward that goal in that within it's guidelines it not only renders illegal any preceding ammunition of the previous 500 years but also places additional financial/ compliance obstacles in the public process where government workers have no such traps.
Power in America is supposed to be 'by and for the people',
What if the people told governments that the governments ammunition would be based on the workers families financial/ compliance ...?
No loaded weapon = no authority
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/
Bio fuels currently produce more problems they are attempting to solve. algae is the only 'bio product' that can provide the needs of humanity without stressing food stock.
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/aqx_p/
How is possibly extinguishing all life , not irrational?! Please correct me but even I realize that a fraction of a second after the big bang ...there was no life ..I think as I read the paper.
"The Large Hadron Collider as it is called; will start up it's massive particle accelerator on September 10Th. .....They are looking for a sub atomic component the Higgs Boson known as "the God particle" that will fill in the last missing piece of the so-called Standard Model of particle physics.....!!"
When a quick question to the paper is made , as to "why is there no mention of types of risks?' ;
"...risk is unpredictable..blah blah.....click"
Trying to have a lucid response reminds me of,Ken Magid's 1989 book, "High Risk: Children Without A Conscience" Which has many twists but also talks about, If we get enough of the right kind of love, we feel that others are generally good, that they can be trusted, that they're like ourselves. If we don't get enough of the right kind of love, life feels cold to us, it feels unsafe and insecure, others cannot be trusted.
Rage, begins to build in my mind.Yeah thanks I think . The general public will not be aware of the level of risk, the night before they may tuck their children to bed for the last time...I slowly hang up the phone.
Perhaps its a self-deluded vestige of an earlier time in my life when I was young and naive and optimistic and less cynical -- but I don't believe that anyone deliberately chooses to impede another innocent person, or would not harm another person if he fully considered all the consequences of his actions. It's a blatant violation of "common" rationality....or is it?
We learn to hide our emotions at such a young age. Yet, when we express them too strongly, we also run the risk of going a bit berserk and losing control. Its a fine line we walk but people should know what risk they face as a group/nation/race
My own irrational behavior -- none of which, fortunately, has been criminal --I think , i hope... I can see why I behaved as I did, why I would override every other rational consideration for ...that time. If we took my own eccentricities and amplified them a little, as they would have been had my upbringing been influenced a little more one way or another than it was, I could see how some of that behavior could become..., ahem.. criminal. I learned this the hard way. It wouldn't necessarily have been bad parents -- but just the decisions I might have made under certain stressful situations.
Some may say all of our behavior is ultimately reactive -- I guess I'm calming down... either on a pure hardware scale, like getting physically hurt, or on a software scale, reacting to a self-created psychological environment that's just as cause / effect driven as the purely physical.
That simple call ....
It's all perception, NOT BLAME-no right/wrong. There's always just enough truth underlying any conclusion to justify them in some way. That's the thing about the brain -- something doesn't have to be True to become advantageous to your own survival. Atheism - a non prophet organization. It only has to be True Enough. The brain operates not on what's True, but rather on what works
Not being aware of the risk is deterministic as it is in the purely physical domain -- but the domain in which the determinism occurs is a psychological domain, a domain of virtual or personally manufactured realities.Challenge 'us' to accept reality! There's still cause / effect going on, but there is now a whole range of imaginary causes and imaginary effects, in addition to "real" causes and effects, that produce a huge number of possible behaviors.Could this dream called life end for all , not just a few?Challenge 'us' to know the truth of our fragility...at least out of respect.
Well, if we are more civilized than our predecessors (that's probably reasonably debatable in either direction), then hope that our offspring will be more civilized than we are.... Overall, we certainly hope that our collective knowledge is growing in scope and depth, .... that one day will coalesce into an effective wisdom and may result in a more enlightened society. Whether that's actually true.... is something we have to wait to find out. Make the most of everyday! May I suggest ,making a wish in the evening of Sept.9Th..?
There are many aspects of 'news' the 'media' manipulates. Overall the public doesn't question the information presented ; which shows the true 'sphere of influence'. People should create laws to limit the extent many media organizations are going to , for profit .....as the majority of the masses are unaware; first impressions are a b.tch.
To stir feelings of human dignity... I rarely feel these days...
It is no wonder we seek the meaning of life because there are times it sure can seem meaningless. 'Meaninglessness' is an other emotion that can accommodate many conditions and connotations...........despair, depression, sadness, fear etc. The events that gave rise to feelings one might initially impart 'meaninglessness' but in reality can be categorized with more precision given a little reflection.
We live through innumerable and painful crises building an emotional history; only to smash our precious emotional memories on the rocks of the eternal...and die... conveys despair or depression. It may, as well, be expressing sadness at a senseless occurrence, something for which nothing in life could have adequately prepared ourselves.Is it some insane joke?
We tie ourselves down because we were brainwashed to over value our emotions and see no escape, no solutions. Choosing to focus upon relationships in lieu of simply things requires much self discipline. We settle for the illusion of security such as having our needs nominally met -- shelter and food.
We are like the circus elephants; believing that a mere chain can hold us in place for the purposes of those who would use us to death and then discard us. But in reality, just like the circus elephant, one tug and the chain shows itself for what it really is, nothing at all. We were lied to as babies to believe the straw man to be strong powerful and almighty, when in reality, all the straw man is, is an evil weakling controlling us through our own ignorance.
If one isn't nesting...Time to remove the 'straw' .
Under normal circumstances we strive to take a painless path in life to find that no such path exists. We also hope that path is one that gives us a majority of happiness and given normal circumstances the great majority find this path satisfactory, not painless but well supplied with happiness and/or peace.
The human spirit is a funny but admirable thing and I know of many who consider their lives blessed by others and the natural joy that seems to pervade the personality of some .
Implicit is the underlying notion that emotion is unwinding, socially, professionally... or Is it a 'devolution' in human 'progress'? Insensitive and deficient compassion produces more often, tangible results.
Our pursuit of answers has provided us with great advances in our intellectual inquiries..........science and technology to name two. But we can include the vast realm of human concepts...A high degree [relatively] of self-consciousness enables us to ask such questions.
We 'ask', presenting our ignorance of 'why' and 'how'. Not with our emotions......... but even that; is only the emotional opinion of a grumpy old man 'Fighting terrorism since 1492' ;)
"There is something in the heart of man that things cannot satisfy." ....Thomas Carlyle
Some seek answers in the metaphysical realm to find a kind of solace and deliverance from the implacable indifference exhibited by Nature and the Universe as a whole, by, in fact, all of existence. We are a part of the whole . We are made of the same stuff as the 'unemotional' Universe.
I find that as wonderful and satisfying a feeling as I imagine a western theist finds in his/her glimpses of some supernatural phenomenon....
Personally I find it disrespectful to all involved to use inductive fallacy as a point of reasoning. In other words; to assume and act as if an assumption is true. Kinda like a cop with poor inquisitive skills.
A friend says it is a way to tell who was raised by media;cop shows,game shows, drama...... I don't fully agree.
It may show the importance of assumptions but to ask the right questions respectfully is still up to the individual.
When governments no longer use weapons as an effective tool, then the people might consider giving up such things. But when each and every government uses guns to not only assert their authority but to also acquire more property makes asking the people to ignore this fact of life and take a passive role in their own future...highly dubious.
Authority comes in one form on this planet, that is regrettably, with a weapon in ones hand ; MAD mutual assured destruction. How willing is a thief when they think the victim may be armed?
Odd how it is commonly overlooked that not one country would exist without guns.
Chuckles , I don't think I said anything was 'wrong' with same sex activity, but just because there are two females doesn't make it any less qualified as,(SAME SEX) homosexual activity. Observing such behavior does nothing for my libido and just cause others find it erotic doesn't mean it is not homosexual activity, or homosexual 'porn'; same sex fills both criteria. ( pardon the pun)
Truth is a subjective term. What may be true, here and now may not be a 'truth' there and then. According to who's standard? The 'burden of proof' changes with the query .
Absolute truth is there is no absolute truth, if that can make sense; anything is possible.
I discussed this at a dinner party and a few of my 'friends' are selling their 'girls gone wild' videos. The women seamed to get it as homosexual porn allot faster than the men.The women had to explain that when it's the same sex, it's the same sex.(period) I didn't mean to pop that bubble, just wanted to have a discussion.Sorry Brad.
Just look at religious text, the lessons are there; I can go into this for hours on a variety of texts but it is better for each individual to learn at their own pace. I was referring to children and how they are introduced to a variety of religions. As for yourself well that is a journey only you can decide what is needed.
I don't think that form of the question puts into proper perspective what needs to be recognized in all religions prior to delving into the varieties of text further.
I hope it helps clarifies things, I am pleased to have someone to engage even if it is just us in da bus at da moment.
What are these "various concepts". Why should we teach them psychology before teaching the "various concepts"?
- The various concepts are the various concepts of religious text. To identify all religious text as being fundamentally a psychological doctrine helps puts into perspective for the plebe or uninformed the nature and effect of such doctrine on the masses. The spirituality is embedded within each text and is a subjective journey; any doctrine should not be dictated.
Instead of telling the story of a heroic whatever, you tell a story about how an internal combustion engine runs. You're taking the essence of life out of being conscious and making it only a machine that works out of necessity rather than will. Would this be a good thing?
- All right lets use your example.....This is an inference you are mistaken about. If (i) wish to convert those whom I am addressing into mechanics then it would be relevant, but I am not. I am not suggesting teaching religion in pursuit of 'the divine' (theology) but rather to be better informed about religion and human behavior (psychology). Being more informed about the variety of religions is , I believe a good thing indeed.
Spirituality can not be taken out of religion , it is embedded throughout all of the texts and comes out once you take the time to read them... to imply that it is a goal of mine is a very big stretch of the facts.
First i would like to thank you for taking a moment to express yourself. I will try to address each question you presented.
"It's the whole dualist thing, is the mind a seat for consciousness, or is the mind your consciousness?"
- I don't think this is an issue until much later in a persons understanding of various concepts.
"I know, if you're like me, you can imagine that you don't have a soul, and that your mind is as far as it goes... your consciousness is only a trick that a machine plays on itself to make it seem as though it's nothing like a machine... but what good does that do for me, as a person?"
- Compassion and emotion is a subjective truth that I leave for the individual to explore as they explore the different religions. People learn to walk at different times and speeds.
"If though, you have a faint belief in a soul, or maybe to abstract the idea of your consciousness into it's own entity, to say "My consciousness is not the brain, because the brain does not have ideas, the brain has chemicals and electricity", it makes my individuality mean something to me. You know?"
- Faith (for me) is in every act, every choice, every question...Faith is not solely a spiritual matter. I have faith you will read this...I believe that. In the tangible and what I share will affect others; how can that appear not to have meaning? it is a part of my, 'faint belief of a 'soul'.
"The whole point is, without spirituality, a human life is worth less, and if it were taught as a form of psychology, people might begin to think that they are just... machines.Anyway, how would psychology even achieve this?"
- If I tell a heroic story about an ant and grasshopper , I include the emotions(compassion), choices (faith) and conflicts (belief). To be detached doesn't imply a cold and un empathetic learning experience.
"Does psychology teach the origin and nature of consciousness? "
- It attempts to explore it's nature but in no way does it teach the origin of consciousness because it is mainly speculation
"If so, can I please have an example or a reference to where I can find this, and if not, how would you show people that religion and spirituality is incorrect?"
- How should I know? I am not saying psychology teaches origin of consciousness.I also DID NOT say religion and spirituality is incorrect.
taught factually..?! How is that done? What 'facts do you wish to observe? such as date of conception or active practice..wars- winners / losers..these people were saved by 'this god' not 'that god'.....?Such practices have continued contention between religious sects...
If the (religious) texts are taught as 'psychological doctrines' children can develop better understandings of the variety of nuances in faiths and eventually chose for themselves what to accept. Perhaps a continent a semester? This way would not favor one faith as being more credible than an other.
Agreed, psychology is as relevant today as it was, as it developed and doesn't change the principals of religion being psychology. As medicine is medicine , in accordance with local understanding of how it was practiced today or 'ancient' Greece.
The word 'ancient' is used to signify the time in which psychological doctrines developed from the deep past to today, humanity has used these text to sway masses throughout time, not solely for spiritual purposes but precisely as psychological doctrine; even TODAY.
Ulterior motives I have not. to 're-brand' is not exactly what I am trying to discuss. I am Identifying a reality in all 'codified religions'. Psychology exists throughout 'it's' text
old and NEW.
In reading the current discussions about how children should understand religious teachings, this question popped in my head and I thought it would make an interesting debate.
All these different people have different beliefs and all of them believe they have the right story.
o 1 Asia
o 1.1 Ainu
o 1.2 Hmong
o 1.3 Korea
o 1.4 Mansi
o 1.5 Mongol
o 1.6 Orok
o 1.7 Shinto
o 1.8 Taoism
o 1.9 Zen
2 Africa
o 2.1 Bakuba
o 2.2 Maasai
o 2.3 Man Dinka
o 2.4 Voodoo
o 2.5 Yoruba
o 2.6 Zulu
3 Europe
o 3.1 Finnish
o 3.2 Greek (Classical)
o 3.3 Norse
4 India
o 4.1 Buddhist
o 4.2 Hindu
o 4.3 Jainism
o 4.4 Sikh
o 4.5 Seurat Shabda Yoga
5 Pacific
o 5.1 Australian Aboriginal
o 5.2 Polynesian
o 5.3 Hawaiian
o 5.4 Maori
o 5.5 Tagalog
6 Middle East
o 6.1 Babylonian
o 6.2 Bahá'í
o 6.3 Egyptian
o 6.4 Hermeticism
o 6.5 Islam
o 6.6 Judaism and Christianity
o 6.7 Mandaeism
o 68 Zoroastrianism
7 North America
o 7.1 Kiowa Apache
o 7.2 Aztec
o 7.3 Cherokee
o 7.4 Choctaw
o 7.5 Creek
o 7.6 Digueno
o 7.7 Hopi
o 7.8 Inuit
o 7.9 Iroquois
o 7.10 Lakota
o 7.11 Maidu
o 7.12 Navajo
o 7.13 Ojibwa
o 7.14 Seminole
o 7.15 Tlingit
8 South America
o 8.1 Inca
o 8.2 Mayan
9 Modern
o 9.1 Evolutionary Spirituality
o 9.2 Mormonism
o 9.3 Raëlism
o 9.4 Randomness
o 9.5 Scientology
o 9.6 Wicca
A majority of the registered religions are quite ancient; granted very, very few have modern concepts.Simply because it may still be practiced doesn't make it in any way greater than a belief, what someone thinks or omit the fact of 'it'(religion) as an ancient creation.
Myths don’t change, all 59 registered religious subcultures attempt to alter an others perspective..(psychology/religion)....of what is 'right'. Where the only form of 'wrong' is to disagree, because they convey a message; usually about morality ( five of the ten commandments are part of many laws,sha.. ) ..Adjusting (on the mass) a wide variation of reality/absolutes for individuals (psychological doctrine). A true cyclical Gorgon Knot but not unidentifiable.
Where is the accountability? Who's job is at risk? American infrastructure is crumbling, schools closing, ....Free markets can only succeed if all concerned have equal economic clout and equal opportunity. Otherwise, you end up with monopolies, cartels and recessions
Chuckles
" If you answer no, you are saying that you must absolutely not live your life with absolutes, which is obviously an absolute that you will live by. You're opinion is invalid."
_ I admit I am looking for others that think , not just accept what may be My 'Inductive Fallisy'. Thank you for taking the time .
A sub-culture remains unless they become the general majority.
Gaining a better understanding within a social group has little effect on society on the whole;if the sub-culture remains idol and idealistic.
Humor recognized...chuckle
But that would depend on how profound any new understanding motivates an individual to share and discus, work out the 'kinks' if you will.If they are indifferent to society gaining from their knowledge , change becomes limited to the individual.
I do appreciate questions, with the ego's around here it's nice to hear.
You ask-how the "collective" exploits this mental illusion of duality and imposes "control" and oppression. How does the "group" severely limit the conscious and active involvement of the individual in their own realm of existence?
- simply look at the debates, yes / no ... right/ wrong...this/that...good/evil...like /dislike
Lets just take a lifetime of one of those duel and dogmatic concepts like good or evil. Religions (macro social groups) dictate terms to individuals(mini sub-cultures) within their realm of influence, augmenting generally accepted norms in society at large.
How can the individual turn the tables on the group?
- discuss it with those in your social network ,whom you can trust; to find a comfortable subjective understanding from which to form ideas that apply.
What is the thought process the individual must master in order to see the illusion for what it is?
- I don't think there is a quick fix. Everyone learns to walk at different times. Life holds the experience to know more than 2 choices ,only for those with the humility to expose ones ignorance by asking a simple question .
"One can only advance ones knowledge if you expose the limit of your ignorance- SPJr"
I do agree that religious text is relevant to society; but to expose young minds to the complexities of what is in fact a ' psychological doctrine'(- SPJr ),is not something that should be mandated to minors.
Minors are shown pieces or parts and mostly recite in school; they have no or little practical experience putting things together. It would be down right insidious to impose such psychological complexities into a minors life.In my opinion.
Self improvement, belief and faith aren't dependent on mysticism; they are dependent on psychology . Religion is the worlds oldest form of psychology and self help, because religion use's clear psychological perspectives in their doctrine ; it could not survive without it .The first time in history....psychological doctrine
Early psychologist like jesus and other 'profits' could not make a speech without metaphor.
500 types of Christians ; baptists,pentecostal,Lutheran....from a text that has at last count 16 versions of their core...
I have learned much in my life ,outside the classic university setting . I would go so far as to say that at least 90% of what I have learned is self-taught .
When going to university recruitment drives, here in America , I hear one word over and over , diversity. But it has been my experience that any semblance of freedom of expression is to be sacrificed on the alter of ...'do not offend.' diversity requirements= brainwashing?
80% of universities curb free speech in ways the government isn't even allowed to do .
Is the lesson that is taught in our schools of 'higher learning' , that people have a right to never be offended?
Go to any campus , you will see people advocating for all types of causes, organizations and movements . From the political clubs, ( young republicans, young democrats), religious groups,(single Christens , single Muslims), even clubs that are geared towards ones sexual orientation ... all are set up to engage contentious issues on campus: but in order to create a ‘politically correct’ atmosphere : you get one that does not reflect the true social environment that the students live outside of the classroom .
The main position of any organization willing to address offenses (political correctness) is a reactionary one. In order for them to take a proactive stance, organizations need to insist on ‘political correctness.’
Organizations focused on curbing offenses may not be able to persuade all.
Organizations can insist that ‘political correctness’ be part of the curriculum of those that are still in the process of their conditioning (education)
To be offended is a highly subjective situation .
There are many different degrees of offense , that will produce a wide variety of responses.
Censorship is like trying to stop the sun from rising . I am trying to stay focused; focus is paramount
The process not the personality of the situation
The two are almost inconsequential when attempting to restrain a single offense to all...
Pick up any university paper and you will see at least one article weekly that addresses some offense .
Are the universities no longer places that focus on education , to institutions for social change?
The university shares the information of the ‘status quo’ and rarely advocates true change.
When it does happen, it is the students or rather the individual that takes it upon themselves to implement any change , a personal choice .
The students interests should be paramount not an institutions .
Education simply provides the statistics the individual considers before taking such action; but the type of individual that is presented with contentious information is paramount .
Conditioning is integral to social change .
Are students too weak or simply pacified to use the first amendment ? Other than a need for real specialized education , do you think going to any university is worth the expense?
"You don’t go anywhere in society without going to college first but ,about 70% of ‘us’ get into college ; Only about 25% get a four year degree ; Only about 30- 35% at best graduate with a two or four year degree "
- Tony Carnival , National Center on Education and the economy (NCEE)
70/25=4<30-35=4/2 is that really worth pursuing?!
Getting educated?
confusion
-Teachers teach to many facts and not enough connections . They don't show how things work together or the 'big picture'
class positions
-based on intelligence
indifference
- Teachers demand student involvement for 50 minutes, then the bell rings . The lesson? No work is worth finishing . Conditioned lesson , why care about anything deeply.
emotional dependency
- Authority decides everything and knows better .From when they are allowed to speak to when they are allowed to use the bathroom .
Intellectual dependency
- Authority decides the lessons and how they are taught. The lesson? We must wait for others to give us meaning .
provisional self - esteem
- Authority evaluates . Lesson? Self worth depends on someone else .
one can't hide
- private time and space do not exist , to expose is encouraged ........' Lesson - Fear , compliance
This process ensures the eventual stagnation of the populace as a whole , mainly because most organizations have little need for any ‘free thinkers’: instead they want those that have been ‘certifiably’ conditioned.
I am attempting to highlight the process that produces the ‘spoon fed personality’; that turns to a book or SOP (standard operating procedure)
As opposed to those that actively seek answers to enhance their subjective understanding .
The written word does not codify interpretation nor can it ever include all axioms of perception - SPJr , this is something no university will ever expose. It must be experienced , more subjective than memorizing text
The illusion of duality
What does it mean to say someone is tall or short, Or to say that something is outside or inside? What are these terms "tall/short" and "outside/inside" referring to? Are they specific designations of particular qualities? If so, then where is the line between someone who is tall and someone who is short?
The fact is that these designations are relative in essence. Something cannot be "tall" without something else being "shorter" to indicate tallness. Outside refers to something external to an "inside"; top refers to having a bottom, etc. These polarities are relational and indicate not a polarized duality, but a cohesive unit with relative aspects; tall and short, light or dark. The illusion is in that we humans tend to forget this unifying principle with duality, but the proof is plain to see. A person of 2 meters is taller than a person standing 1.5 meters, but shorter than a person at 2.2 meters. This illustrates the relational quality between short and tall. The same goes for outside and inside. To illustrate take the human dermal layer (skin and fat), is the skin outside of a human or is the air that touches the skin the outside? Are the underlying layers of dermal material inside and the topmost layer outside? Regardless, on a physical level, the "outside" of our skin is also an illusion because skin is permeable to some things and not to others.
The whole idea of dualities existing as separate entities is illusion. They are relational and completely interdependent upon each other. This goes for "emotions" and "intellect" as well. They cannot be separated into singular classes, because they are interdependent with each other. The intellect informs the emotive centers of the brain, and the emotive centers influence the intellect. If a person is lacking in either intellect or emotional depth, both are adversely affected.
I see the dangers of this illusion everywhere. The illusion of duality is embedded into our language, in our educational infrastructure, in the media we see. It is the illusion that we as individuals are somehow separate from our environment, from our actions, our bodies, from the people in our lives, when in actuality our identities are composed of all of these aspects. This illusion provides a license for dangerous attitudes and exploitive behavior; From the good/ bad religious paradigm to the left/ right political positions... if we are separate from our environment, it is easier to see it only as a usable resource. This is the very illusion that gives rise to selfishness over true identity.
Why is it that we say "my body" or "my mind"? This semantic trap implies some kind of propriety over ourselves, that there is some other thing that is "I", that owns the body and mind. This is a grand illusion that plays out in many ways. But when we look at the matter with any degree of depth, it is obvious that we are our bodies and minds, not some "separate" entity that is driving the vehicle. When either our bodies or our minds are damaged beyond repair, then we cease. This illusion is so rampant in our culture that most people buy into it hook, line and sinker. We start thinking in terms of "control" as in"I just can't control my lusty thoughts". We create these little conflicts within us that are completely neurotic in essence. There isn't a filmstrip playing inside us with another little consciousness watching it. The problem with that idea is that the "little" consciousness inside must also have a "little filmstrip" playing ad infinitum.
To assert that there are real distinctions between our thoughts and our emotions stems from this illusion of being separate from our "selves". Once we make the shift to seeing duality as embodying a relation, then we can easily see how each (our cognitive abilities and our internal emotional content) overlap. This is a liberating act; it liberates us from holding onto assumptions about ourselves that impede our ability to understand.
This same illusory quality of dualism is found in the artificial separation between individuals and the collective. Such as the problem of erroneously calling "the focus on the individual". The truth is that the idea that we as individuals are separate from the lives we lead and the influences both on us and from us is wrong. The self includes not only what is "inside" our skin, but also what is outside it as well. We are the community and the community is us as individuals. It's when this relational aspect is neglected that rampant individual selfishness manifests. In our current social system, the "group" has the upper hand, and severely limits the conscious and active involvement of the individual in their own realm of existence. The "collective" is exploiting this mental illusion of duality and imposing "control" and oppression.
The truth is not that we as a culture are too focused on individualism, but that we adhere to this illusion that we are somehow separate from our society, from our environment, from each other.
The mind as a hierarchal structure rather than a binary system.
The problems with making any generalized statement about consciousness arises from the fact that it amounts to consciousness to define itself. The Zen Koan "what is the sound of one hand clapping" is an attempt to call attention to this whole idea of touching ones left index finger with their left index finger. However, despite the difficulties in making any sweeping generalizations about consciousness scientific consensus has made some progress on understanding consciousness.
One of the key advances in neurology and psychiatry is the idea that the brain is not a hierarchal system, meaning that it doesn't have a centralized control unit governing the activities of the brain, but rather a hierarchal system, where each component part is involved with the governance of the brain. This accounts for both neurological and for psychiatric phenomenon (the illusion of Mind/brain distinction).
On a cellular level, the brain works not like a binary system, or a hierarchal system, but each individual neuron may be attached to any number of other neurons working in concert with each other. The electronic "messages" are nonlinear (they do not follow from a single starting point) and they are as close to simultaneous as we can get. This web or network of connected neurons work as the most efficient and complex hierarchal system known to humans.
On the psychiatric/psychological side of things, the idea that we have one distinct mental identity was first attacked by William James, and then by Freud and Jung, Erich Fromm, et al. Each of these learned and intelligent people had their own structure of mind. For Freud there was the Id, the ego and the superego, Jung had his own versions, Fromm as well. The behaviorist movement (Skinner, et al) also saw the complexity of the mind as being relative and not structural unique. According to their school of thought human beings are input/output boxes, and in order to manipulate the output, the input needs to change. This indicates a higher level of complexity than a static identity.
When a person hears/sees/feels/tastes/smells/touches anything, that stimulus is screened through a myriad of inferences before we are conscious of it. Once we recognize the "thought" it continues to add to inferences and memories are recreated, impressions and thoughts in the past. These impressions/memories/thoughts cannot be defined as either emotional or intellectual. The stimulus incorporates both at the same time.
This matrix of memory, inferences, and cognition that all stimulus undergoes is not "controlled" by any single aspect of mention, but is influenced by them all. Even just physical sensation itself. This complex matrix cannot be coded into a binary function, and in fact at this point the closest we can code it is in a trinity system (which is an exponential difference in complexity). The problem is that the complexity and non-linear aspects of mention are not amenable to simplistic symbiotic; we cannot reduce the patterns down to simple symbols or systems.
The activity of the brain is a physical hierarchy, each part plays a significant role with the whole, and the activity of the mind is also hierarchal, in that the matrix of experience is composed of many different impulses, memories, and action.
Duality is a myth , in conception and actualization. Anyone unaware of this is living with inductive fallicies.
The title may make a cute sentence but if you think about it longer than half a second ; you may notice that everything requires a bit of 'faith': in a response, in the correct answer, in a question..not just mysticism... EVERYTHING even faith; requires 'ignorance' if it is to advance along the "cycle of knowledge-ignorance,faith,change-Santi P" .They are not the same if one requires the other (like good/bad).
Is this what I am to expect around here as what passes as debate? Not one word (other than cav) addressing the definition I presented; just no...?
Debate doesn't only lye in the question presented but in the responses that conflict your position. To simply say no, ...It's An Opinion; not a debate.
I am wondering if I am busy playing with moons when I come from stars.
That is the very reason I took the time to write a definition to debate .
I disagree that the word 'evil' has no real meaning, most conflicts are based partly on it . When one tries to vilify another or simply sway the masses...How can that not have relevance?
Any one ever heard of his research on how emotions effect water?
Dr. Masaru Emoto
Many of you have heard, read or studied about Dr. Masaru Emoto and his concepts involving emotions and their vibrational effects on water. We greatly respect and honor the groundbreaking research and photographic techniques that Dr. Emoto is showing and sharing with the world.
Writings from Dr. Emoto:
" Hado: The intrinsic vibrational pattern at the atomic level in all matter. The smallest unit of energy. Its basis is the energy of human consciousness. The theory of 'Ha do' postulates that, since all phenomena is at heart resonating energy, by changing the vibration we change the substance. What has put Dr. Emoto at the forefront of the 'Ha do' phenomenon is his proof that thoughts and feelings affect PHYSICAL reality. By producing different 'Ha do' through written and spoken words, as well as music and literally presenting it to the SAME water samples, the water appears to "change its expression."
-"Our bodies are composed of seventy trillion (+/-) cells - each containing liquid/water. Water is a substance that easily adapts to its environment. Dr. Emoto freezes droplets of water, examining them under a dark field microscope with photographic capabilities. Using various positive and negative thoughts, words, ideas and music, Dr. Emoto's research has demonstrated that water's physical appearance is not the only change - molecular structure also changes. From Dr. Emoto's work we receive visual proof of human vibrational energy. He has gained worldwide acclaim through his groundbreaking research and discovery that water is deeply connected to our individual and collective consciousness."
This sort of stuff makes me wonder just how much our angry words affect ours and others health. But then of course it may also tie in with the power of prayer to affect ill health. Music is of course vibrational and we know how that can affect animals and even plants as much as it can us.
Even I know the importance of prayer , repetition creates focus; focus become paramount , not the words.
But is this the science behind the New Age concept of energy and vibration (and I guess the old age concept of Chi?)?
Lets take a closer look.
Dr. Emoto's research has demonstrated that water's physical appearance is not the only change - molecular structure also changes.
This sounds like new age gobbledygook to me. Sounds fundamental so it must be mysterious and therefore is probably correct ?!
If water's molecular structure undergoes change then it is no longer water!
The molecule comprises 2 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, hence the chemical symbol H2O and the chemical name di-Hydrogen oxide.
There is a molecule commonly but incorrectly called heavy water, Deuterium. This is in truth really heavy hydrogen. Its occurrence through the Cosmos [approx 0.015% by volume] is evidence that supports the Big Bang Hypothesis.
Dr. Emoto freezes droplets of water, examining them under a dark field microscope with photographic capabilities.
Ripping stuff..........but the text that follows this stunning bit of intelligence tells us nothing of what he sees.
He has gained worldwide acclaim through his groundbreaking research and discovery that water is deeply connected to our individual and collective consciousness.
A perusal of the Wikipedia site will provide a more realistic view of Emoto's work from qualified scientists. James Randi has offered him $1m if his claimed results can be confirmed by double-blind tests. Emoto has declined the challenge so far.
Emoto also freely declares that he is not a scientist, so 'the Doctor honorific' is almost certainly bogus. The vignette to the right of the article is revealing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Why be distracted by either ego? The amazing revelation's by science of the real wonders of the natural world are vastly more awe-inspiring and breath-taking than either ego battling for attention .
When we consider how the mind acts when utilizing common mental exercises like well.... focus is paramount . The words we use or the religions that formed the mantras are inconsequential to the results.
There is mounting evidence that the way we think has a direct relation to our health and environment . Although being me; I don’t think religion is required; to codify prayer as an ancient mental exercise.
Sub cultures are more and more informed . They also outnumber the theocracies that bind them. Greatest change comes from the few . The climate dictates change .
Many field studies on "spiritual" phenomena and para-normal activity have been conducted for some forty years..
Having been a stone mason on some of the most famous buildings in America for years; I have come across some interesting ancient stories . Masons have had a relationship with organized religion for thousands of years .
It is common knowledge in the trade : that religious organizations have always preferred to have their structures built out of particular stone, whenever possible .A lot of those ancient structures are reportedly haunted .
It wasn't until modern times has man discovered that granite is slightly radioactive . Radiation is a form of natural radio waves or electricity and all stone (like all matter) is slightly magnetized . Matter has a measurable background radiation . Granite causes a natural electro-magnetic disturbance.
What does that have to do with prayer or ghosts? Well..."..in order to understand your enemy you must understand yourself..."-Tsun Tsu , art of war .
What is man? Billions of cells with billions of atoms , all communicating with a central hub, the brain . How does the brain communicate? Through electro-chemicals in the nervous system .The electro-chemical organism better known as the 'brain' interprets reality through a pattern of chemicals .
Various universities and government agencies have been studying electro-magnetic patterns in the brain and found out that there are certain constants . Basic commands create electro-chemical patterns in the brain, which use a low electro - magnetic charge to communicate : up ,down , left , right and so on . The military has been developing " hands free" flying with a similar device .All are in agreement
During these studies odd happenings would occur. Aberrations would appear and objects would move completely on their own . Then .....this professor from Nevada , who happened to be experiencing and documenting the same effects with his Tesla Coil "s electro-magnetic fields. Producing not only feeling a sense of aw and uncertainty : but other altered realities over a period of exhaustive tests ; he was able to actually manipulate objects physical structure .( Sorry I can't quite recall the professors name just yet )This professor from Nevada suggested that
".. the brain was naturally programed to communicate through electro- magnetic patterns and should those patterns be disturbed; the brain then "tunes in" to any electro-magnetic field thus warping our known reality by scrambling the brains patterns; "
All modern electronics generate this charged field on some level . 'Ghost' chasers understand this phenomena and often a test is run on the electronic equipment to measure the electro-magnetic disturbance generated by the hardware and structure you expose yourself to ; like the way your house is wired and the location of power stations and the type of stone is on your land...
All thoughts in the mind, create a pattern of chemicals in the brain.
There are specific patterns that identify commands like , up down...and interpret reality .
It has been proven that low levels of radiation disrupts those patterns in the brain ; depending on the level of radiation and location of the individual...ect..
The early church only knew that certain types of stone had mysterious effects on 'believers' and created a sense of aww and uncertainty .. nothing more at the time
Stone was an ancient example .(one everyone seamed to grab for) I used it. to point out that background radiation has always been there and has been used .. Stone is only one material .
In todays modern world the walls are highly charged with electromagnetic radiation ;electrical wires , computers,microwaves, MRI ...have a much higher level of background radiation and in doing so have a much higher validity than stone .I am not saying 'stone can capture thought' ; I am saying that a variety of materials influence the 'minds' perspective and prayer helps focus the mind .
So much in fact, that this agnostic that leans heavily toward atheism is arguing for prayer; not religion.
After a long peaceful , law abiding life ; people should have the choice to make thier last days as comfortable as possible.
I am not saying that they should be 'stoned' driving down the freeway ; of course there should be precautions to protect the general public .
Where in my 'definition do I make any religious reference?
The first line was meant to clarify that very issue. 'evil' is a concept that even the most stern atheist can fully understand, if they are willing to accept that 'evil' does exist and is not dependent on mystical terms or concepts. A fact few are aware of , I agree but I disagree that the term' 'evil' is meaningless when entire peoples and nations mobilize against 'it'.
Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness, or skill. It will make or break a company ... a church ... a home.. a relationship
The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day.
We cannot change our past.
We cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way.
We cannot change the inevitable.
The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude
... I am convinced that an individuals life is 10% what happens to them, and 90% is how they react to it.
And so it is with you .. we are in charge of our Attitudes.
I've been wrestling with this issue for awhile. I'm not certain what the actual answer is. It's very closely related to the topic of "free will" -- how much choice do we really have? It's possible that we have no real choice at all, that our "intuitively obvious" feeling that we do have a choice is really just an illusion created by the impossibility of actually knowing all the factors that coalesce and "conspire" at each and every moment to determine what our choice will be. All those factors are not knowable until the instant a choice is made -- and all the factors may well be unknowable, and so we may not even be able to choose when a decision is made.
Some are in charge of their attitudes.Possibly those who were not subjected to extreme cruelty at a young age.Those who were not beaten ,molested, abandoned...Those who were not indoctrinated with dogma early in their childhood.Those who were allowed to think and feel without coercion.But in almost all or us we find varying degrees of an attitude about many things.It is almost impossible to start out with a tabula rasa.Everything from genetics to our environment conspires to defeat the reasoning mind which allows unprejudiced choice.
People do try to force their opinions on one though. I have actually had people complain because so-and-so never agreed with them and thus was thought incapable of logic. To some folk there is always only one answer to life's problems and they alone have it. A clear sign of a person with poor communication skills.
For those that have dysfunctional childhoods and realize it, they have a hard battle to be able to change their own attitudes. Attitudes are instant and they're not always rational thought.
For a long time, they still feel right and they have to consciously be replaced with something better. It takes a long time for it to come naturally and even longer to realize they should not apply.You wind up living in a world of your misguided assumptions.
We're not even blank slates when we're born. Depending on wiring and brain chemistry, a new person perceives and reacts to his world differently than the next person. There's probably more random chance involved than we would like to believe and less people to blame.
If we "mature", later decisions about our lives are simply influenced by earlier decisions -- we're a little smarter because we notice the consequences of earlier and often bad judgment, and we make some adjustments.
Even here, though, we can debate whether we're really making a choice, or whether the consequences of earlier decisions are now determining what later decisions are, actually forcing us to make a new "choice" because we wish to avoid repeating the same mistake.
So it is with attitude. For some reason, I've always been relatively optimistic, relatively upbeat, relatively happy -- and this has always seemed pretty effortless, like it's a genetic thing. I'm not sure how much control I really have over that -- though, whether or not I have any control over it, it absolutely affects how folks react to me, and so has always had a generally positive effect on my life. So I absolutely agree that attitude affects one's life -- I don't know how much control I really have over it.
Our life's experiences has an impact on our attitude but only up to a point.
However, as we become fully mature adults, we should be able to rationalize our past experiences, let them go, and take charge of our attitude. Maybe I should say, ideally, we should be able to rationalize.....
Each of us is simultaneously captain...and captive....of his own ship.
Although I don't think the ingrained attitudes necessarily come from indoctrination (at least nothing deliberate), abuse or even from any kind of parenting. Many are just from life's circumstances. Good and bad.
The 'good life' doesn't leave as many obvious markers. They're what gives children confidence that they can take into their adult years. We teach our children they deserved to be loved. They even learn what they shouldn't put up with.
All these things make up the attitudes they carry as adults. If your mom handled things calmly and with good cheer, her daughter is allot more likely to, etc.
You are the reason for your happiness and sorrow.
Gravel Road
If life were a gravel road
it would be easier to see
who's choice is behind
that which affects us
You choose to identify,
hold onto, be encumbered by
or walk by any rock on the road
How it effects you is
Your choice
According to your upbringing. . ...
Same with doubt, confrontation, acceptance. . .
No matter how that 'rock' developed,
or 'because of. . .' . . ..
You choose how to deal with it,
Own your choice
Do you blame the pebble when you stub your toe?
Despite 'Evil's' subjectivity there is an underlying structure that I believe I have uncovered .
Evil :
Strategy or situation becoming myopic selfishness with extreme ( malicious ) dogmatic tendencies driven by process or policy
TYPES (sub-sets)
Denial
- seams the most destructive type and can go unnoticed , Personality and process are expendable , denial of all , even to the point of denial of self . ( Dogmatic base).
Selfishness
- This type seams to be 'main stream' ; either process or personality become paramount ; it has an agenda and a lose strategy .(self or goal based)
Indifference
- usually the first step in the 'denial shift' ( myopic base )
'Evil' is fluid within theses boundaries . 'Evil' acts have a variation of the sub- sets within their basic 'structure'. Once 'it' is identified , if able ; 'evil' will shift to another sub -set in order to camouflage it's actions .
This structure can be found in any ones concept of 'evil'.
Identifying an element as 'evil' doesn't define 'why' it is so .
People often use the terms as a blanket statement without any universally accepted definition. 'They' refer to 'it' as a noun , adjective , entity , purpose ...it's all twisted .
'Evil' has not had any clear definition for a long time . Society has tried to grasp it's complexities : in the end ‘we’ still seam willing to accept shallow conclusions ; ignoring the bits that allow it's continual development .
A modern definition of it's structure is needed . I don't expect the masses to be aware of the concept I have developed here .
'Evil' is separate from 'bad' . Bad is a singularity , 'evil' is a chain of choices toward a goal , even if that goal is as simple as denial ; but 'evil' can be measured once there is a clear definition .
Good doesn't know it is 'evil' at times as well . If you understand that most charitable or any other organizations develop agendas ; like helping the homeless or defeating legislation . Strategy become myopic, full of selfishness with extreme dogmatic tendencies. Collateral damage becomes inevitable .
Since I think that 'evil' acts can be indirectly implemented and at times does not rely on personality , but process : I can not accept either ego or morals ( religion/ lack of) as an inhibitor of 'evil'.
Choice separate the 'ego' from ' evil ': you can not be what you do not know.
Ego must be aware of 'process' in order to create 'evil' . Ego can not be what it doesn't know .
Subjectivity of the 'process' and 'personality' is where ' evil' lies .
‘Myopic selfishness with extreme dogmatic tendencies’ , those words are very accurate in identifying potential for an 'evil' situation and seams to tidy up the lose ends and are kind of a 'red flag' that identifies a situation as having potential for one of 'evils sub -sets to emerge (or already have ).
Defining 'evil' isn't based on emotion; the ability to define 'evil' is in the sub -sets that I have outlined .
" Good and bad are two sides of every act , choice ; is that which connects them. They can never be separated , unlike what most religions claim........ all acts have a 'proactive' and 'destructive' consequence due to the level of dogmatic impetus : which dictate the level of 'free will' and 'determinism' in the outcome ." - Santi P
Agreed?
Then again , one would have to accept that 'evil' even exists. If one doesn't, can one be held accountable?
Pope John Paul declared evolution "more than a hypothesis," and in 2004 as Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict endorsed the scientific view that the earth is roughly four billion years old and that species changed through evolution. Indeed, there has been no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution, the foundation of
modern biology, explains the diversity of life on earth.
Given that history, scientists and church experts say they cannot
imagine the study session ending with any alignment of the pope or the church with intelligent design or American-style creationism, which often posits that Earth is only about 6,000 years old. "
By IAN FISHER
Published: September 2, 2006
Faith , is a highly subjective term . There are many different types of interpretations . Belief and faith are often used as synonyms, but faith is a system of beliefs . The following is just an opinion , because I have given this some thought
Modern man can be physically (archeology) traced back 160,000 years. Meanwhile , civilization developed along side him . All the first sciences ; architecture, political science, agriculture , metallurgy.. are the cornerstones of any true civilization ; developed independent of organized religion (having ‘faith’ in a higher power)
Religions have changed many times, over years . As well as the concept of "god" and things people place a higher value on or worship have evolved . With one constant; looking toward the unknown( the abstract) and things outside themselves which developed mysticism to improve the inner self for the 'journey into the unknown'.
Throughout history religions have adapted to the changing times . Heck today there are 500 varieties of Christian religions , Baptist, Mormon , evangelist, protestant ....
The definition of their "god" has also evolved from the old testament "man god" in the new testament and the assimilation of the pagan deities with the emergence of the saints .
Over the Millennia peoples interpretation of mysticism has been fluid and adaptable .
From the African stereotypes: primitivism , violence , sexual excess , savagery ) to the Asian stereotype ( passive obedience , mind control , brainwashing, slavish submission ) All in a attempt to curb that 'free will.'Makes for a highly pliable "tool".
" Blind faith ," is a very powerful " tool " used by the "journeymen or elders" of society.
The young hold tight to the idea of maturity and are engrossed in routine and ritual during their most influential of years .
Conditioned to rely on the patterns of the past and only look toward their "wallets" or "mysticism" as a path forward .
Omitting the sound foundation of the scientific methodology in social or political science's ; outside of mathematics , language skills and personal gain
'blind faith' (x) and religion (y) , war (1). Are tools . What would one wish to create with these tools? [x-1-y] , cyclical 'holy war' is the amalgamation throughout history.Contention is an integral creation of religion almost as much as faith is in life .
Religion will never relinquish the reins of social power willingly .They are willing to adjust and adapt to the changes of the political world to keep hold of those reins but never to relinquish control.
Creating a clear point at which its dogma becomes dogmatic and no longer is a passive activity filled with highly pliable , devoted ...'vessels'.
Over time it makes for a highly dogmatic , aggressive and malleable society . Willing to place, never to question; their ‘faith’ in the long dead, looking to the greats of the past; Instead of turning around and looking within themselves , toward the future
The term ‘god’ seams more of an observation of ones connection to that which one deems mystical, but according to which standards ? Or should I say , who‘s standard ?
There is evidence in most cultures that the concept of "god" and things people place a higher value on or worship have evolved in modern man, along side our understanding of death .
For example in China the evidence can be traced back to the 14 century BC ; ancient south Americans produced mummy’s as early as 7,800 BC... With one constant; looking toward mysticism .
"There is, is evidence that there was a fear/concern for what happens after they died,, the rest is how the mind rationalized it: one example would be ;the dead were covered in red , to symbolize the blood shed at birth and in fetal positions".
Taken from paper in , Current Anthropology By Bradd Shore , a cognitive anthropologist
With the modern understanding of the way the brain works and the cyclical nature of energy ,it seams as if we are no closer to understanding death than we were 44,000 years ago .
I feel as if at death , we simply resonate at the same frequency as the rest of existence: but to retain such a low frequency... Tibetan monks would eat nuts and tree bark before death in order to preserve the body after physical death and achieved self mummification ;combined with morphic resonance and other types of mental disciplines which have been proven to change an individuals mental frequency (prayer) : Is a 'conscious death' possible?
'Conscious death' would imply a 'conscious life' , should understanding 'common realities' be a pre requisite to achieving a 'conscious life'? What type of reality , the various digital dimensions of man , electromagnetic fields or the subjective consciousness in which you chose what to beleive’ in to secure your 'faith?'
There is also statuary that predates the written word but nothing denoting interpretation or perception. Modern man existed for about 150,000 years outside of organized religion and the concept of a single,"god".
Statuettes were sometime found at early burial sites and there have been speculations made that the figures were some type of ‘god’ figure ; but since the written word can only be traced no further back than 5,500 years ago to any ancient true alphabet : any connection to a diety prior to such a date is just speculation .
When one becomes surrounded by people that try to use mysticism to define their reality and OTHERS : the arrogance and ignorance of the 'mystical masses' becomes quite offensive; when I am refered to as 'not having faith or a non-believer' .
Self improvement, belief and faith aren't dependent on mysticism; they are dependent on psychology .
Religion is the worlds oldest form of psychology. Jesus is just one of the most famous of the first psychologists; religion uses clear psychological perspectives in their doctrine ; it could not survive without it .The first time in history.
Yes it is a personal journey and that I can respect ; I travel it myself . In a time when people are actively seeking to kill or isolate non -believers ; mysticism no longer is a personal issue when it threatens lives and the way the masses interpret reality .
Faith is a very abstract idea but it doesn’t super-cede the reality of historic development and interdependency ; in fact little can be accomplished without faith , even in science . Faith in each other ( the tangible) , I think it has more importance.
The written word can never codify all axioms of interpretation as most religious texts are presented. It can capture the thoughts of Humanity ; not some invisible..; it doesn’t depend on anyone ‘believing’ in it , or a need to develop a ‘faith’ that it is ....what it is.
This is all just one mans opinion but, what if lifes true form was simply thought . All life displays it , man is obsessed with it and it is the only true form of man that may become immortal .
Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness, or skill. It will make or break a company ... a church ... a home.. a relationship
The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day.
We cannot change our past.
We cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way.
We cannot change the inevitable.
The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude
... I am convinced that an individuals life is 10% what happens to them, and 90% is how they react to it.
And so it is with you .. we are in charge of our Attitudes.
I've been wrestling with this issue for awhile. I'm not certain what the actual answer is. It's very closely related to the topic of "free will" -- how much choice do we really have? It's possible that we have no real choice at all, that our "intuitively obvious" feeling that we do have a choice is really just an illusion created by the impossibility of actually knowing all the factors that coalesce and "conspire" at each and every moment to determine what our choice will be. All those factors are not knowable until the instant a choice is made -- and all the factors may well be unknowable, and so we may not even be able to choose when a decision is made.
Some are in charge of their attitudes.Possibly those who were not subjected to extreme cruelty at a young age.Those who were not beaten ,molested, abandoned...Those who were not indoctrinated with dogma early in their childhood.Those who were allowed to think and feel without coercion.But in almost all or us we find varying degrees of an attitude about many things.It is almost impossible to start out with a tabula rasa.Everything from genetics to our environment conspires to defeat the reasoning mind which allows unprejudiced choice.
People do try to force their opinions on one though. I have actually had people complain because so-and-so never agreed with them and thus was thought incapable of logic. To some folk there is always only one answer to life's problems and they alone have it. A clear sign of a person with poor communication skills.
For those that have dysfunctional childhoods and realize it, they have a hard battle to be able to change their own attitudes. Attitudes are instant and they're not always rational thought.
For a long time, they still feel right and they have to consciously be replaced with something better. It takes a long time for it to come naturally and even longer to realize they should not apply.You wind up living in a world of your misguided assumptions.
We're not even blank slates when we're born. Depending on wiring and brain chemistry, a new person perceives and reacts to his world differently than the next person. There's probably more random chance involved than we would like to believe and less people to blame.
If we "mature", later decisions about our lives are simply influenced by earlier decisions -- we're a little smarter because we notice the consequences of earlier and often bad judgment, and we make some adjustments.
Even here, though, we can debate whether we're really making a choice, or whether the consequences of earlier decisions are now determining what later decisions are, actually forcing us to make a new "choice" because we wish to avoid repeating the same mistake.
So it is with attitude. For some reason, I've always been relatively optimistic, relatively upbeat, relatively happy -- and this has always seemed pretty effortless, like it's a genetic thing. I'm not sure how much control I really have over that -- though, whether or not I have any control over it, it absolutely affects how folks react to me, and so has always had a generally positive effect on my life. So I absolutely agree that attitude affects one's life -- I don't know how much control I really have over it.
Our life's experiences has an impact on our attitude but only up to a point.
However, as we become fully mature adults, we should be able to rationalize our past experiences, let them go, and take charge of our attitude. Maybe I should say, ideally, we should be able to rationalize.....
Each of us is simultaneously captain...and captive....of his own ship.
Although I don't think the ingrained attitudes necessarily come from indoctrination (at least nothing deliberate), abuse or even from any kind of parenting. Many are just from life's circumstances. Good and bad.
The 'good life' doesn't leave as many obvious markers. They're what gives children confidence that they can take into their adult years. We teach our children they deserved to be loved. They even learn what they shouldn't put up with.
All these things make up the attitudes they carry as adults. If your mom handled things calmly and with good cheer, her daughter is allot more likely to, etc.
You are the reason for your happiness and sorrow.
Gravel Road
If life were a gravel road
it would be easier to see
who's choice is behind
that which affects us
You choose to identify,
hold onto, be encumbered by
or walk by any rock on the road
How it effects you is
Your choice
According to your upbringing. . ...
Same with doubt, confrontation, acceptance. . .
No matter how that 'rock' developed,
or 'because of. . .' . . ..
You choose how to deal with it,
Own your choice
Do you blame the pebble when you stub your toe?
