People as they are Consciously vs. As they are Unconsciously

[Unseen_Abilities]

-

Edited January 31, 2014 by Unseen_Abilities

[Marblehead]

I am going to disagree with you simply because I must.

 

Although I will agree with you that there are some (many?) who still hold to this infantile mentality there are also many who have outgrown this mentality.

 

Even though I rarely speak of spirituality I think I should say that escaping this infantaile mentality is an indicator of our evolution.

 

At some point in life we should give up our priority of self and expand to others which will itself evolve into "we". Problem many have is that as the "we" grows larger the "self" grows smaller. There will be resistance. Yes, fear.

[The Prisoner]

Is it possible to be unconscious? Sound to me, to be like an excuse. Or another catch 22?+

[Marblehead]

Is it possible to be unconscious? Sound to me, to be like an excuse. Or another catch 22?+

That is a question many professionals (mainly sociologists) would love to be able to answer.

 

The question would be: Was what we did a natural (unconscious) act or was it a calculated (conscious) response for whatever the reason and logic?

[Stosh]

Im thinking there isnt much difference between calculated and uncalculated, the differences just lie in which mental elements are coming into play. Is it emotion or logic or reflex which predominates is a reasonable thing to look at , but ultimately, one does, what one does ,as a summation of those. If the subjects mother was being beaten, which would be the 'normal' response , that of the muppets or that of the lady? When TTBs were polled abouit self defense the large response was that it was imperative, appropriate etc , so how can anger or retribution be considered 'unnatural'... Im thinking it can be justified by circumstance.

Yeah people like being happy , they also like other feelings.

Grandpas wisdom cant be 'always be nice'.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Stosh

[Unseen_Abilities]

-

Edited January 31, 2014 by Unseen_Abilities

[Marblehead]

The use of "unconsciously" here refers more to many many people holding disturbing/evil beliefs and constructs in their Subconscious ...

Yes, that is the understanding I was speaking to.

[Stosh]

While thats possible , that Freudian? view , I think is suggesting a division more thorough, than I suspect is the case for most folks.

But I do agree on the idea that there are things which go on behind the scene in our minds.

 

Philosophically , Taoism seems unfeasible if one thinks those muppets depict our 'natural' selves, Freudian psych seems to suggest that very thing though. This sets up a fundamental paradigm which covers some religions, and that is ,,a person is a bad thing which has to be corrected, disciplined, over ruled , to reach a blessed state.

 

From the way the original post is presented, folks could either be nice inside,, mean outside OR ! ,they could be nice outside,, but mean inside. Either one would possibly be a 'sad' truth..... but what I was trying to point at , was that having an incomplete mental repetoir wouldnt really be a feasible suggestion for many instances. .

Cloistered in some compound , maybe someone can get away with half the package, and maybe they would be happier , I dont know. Because of that issue, I figure wise advice cant be so one sided as to say always act in this particular ( nice )behavior mode all the time. To give helpful advice one would have to find some other paradigm by which to judge expedient behavior. ( and thats why chapter 1 says what it does)

[9th]

Is it possible to be unconscious? Sound to me, to be like an excuse. Or another catch 22?+

 

Do you control the beating of your own heart? Can you stop your heart at will? Can you go without sleep forever? Do you ever require food? These processes are unconscious.

 

The question you should be asking is: is it possible to be conscious? Most people are not, they are wholly motivated by entirely unexamined processes which they have no control over, far above and beyond simple instinctual needs. The psyche has its own realm of operation, and the general basis of its principles are almost always based on the erroneous idea that our being is separate from the world around us. As such, all internal edifice built upon it is likewise erroneous and leads to all manner of unintended and spurious consequences by way of misperception.

 

Its not a question of nature vs nurture, both are accountable. The natural aspect of man is the ability to harmonize heaven and earth - which requires our hand to fulfill, it is not given automatically because that would invalidate the principle itself. We have a choice whether or not to fulfill this possibility. Society and the world of learned behaviors which continually condition everyone throughout history do not predominately lean in this direction, rather they favor a life which gravitates to simple animalistic concerns, as they arise at the human level. But this social conditioning itself arises directly from the unfulfilled potentials, so it is directly relevant as well and therefore can serve as the means by which such potential is accomplished.

 

The disparity of a persons (friendly, cheerful, etc) mask vs the actual bent of their (selfish, hurtful, etc) motivations is derived partly from social conditioning - as it is of course easier to achieve an objective that is unknown to those who may oppose you. However it is also derived from the internal discrepancy itself, filling the gaps between what a person thinks of themselves (as loving, caring, "good", etc.) and the actuality of their actions which may be entirely opposite to this. There is a great deal of psychological pain generated by the internal discrepancy between fully invested self-belief and its lack of accordance with actual reality, so ignorance of this is constantly reinforced to maintain the functionality of life and of course these hypocritical aspects of it.

[Unseen_Abilities]

-

Edited January 31, 2014 by Unseen_Abilities

[Marblehead]

Yes, and we will always be subject to such input until we start questioning what we read and hear consciously before it takes root in our subconscious mind.

 

Without the questioning it would be pretty much like you said T.S.

 

The Science Channel has a relatively new motto: Question Everything

 

I try to live by that.

[Stosh]

Yeah , there are many messages bombarding us daily , but since I think our personal life theme doesnt change much after initial development , somewhere around 6 through 10 yrs old , and pretty much ceases entirely by the end of puberty...these messages are just odditites or reinforcing of the things we already agree with (or dont.). Some meditation should reveal the internal bombardment which is going on at an even faster pace.

Most information gets taken in temporarily , a big chunk of it is dismissed as a beneath our need to remember it , and of the stuff thats left over , during sleep we sift through it for anything of value. If one doesnt attatch emotional content to this new data, it just isnt used, it has no assessed value , and so no net impact.

 

Ah, the science channel , really one of those wonderful new institutions. The photography and subject matter are awesome. I wonder sometimes how far the proliferation of niche programming can go , because the one and only ( excusable ) thingie Id like to see them do is spin off an even more intense version... with the kind of particulars that tend to interest 'just- the few'.

Maybe you tube will eventually have something like that for Doctoral presentations, just about anything interests me , so I dont get bent out of shape because a topic is obscure.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Stosh,

 

RE your first section: Yes, I have heard the same about mental development but I think it leaves out much of what I would consider "intentional recalibration". This happens often enough to, in my opinion, rethink the concept of our initial development being firmly established at such an early age.

 

 

RE your second section: I agree. But even the Science Channel puts some "junk" presentations into their programming. Perhaps it is bacause there isn't enough "real" science presentations to fill the 24 hour programming. I mean, searching for Bigfoot isn't good science nor is any other programming based only on mythology that has no factual support.

[Stosh]

Stosh,

 

RE your first section: Yes, I have heard the same about mental development but I think it leaves out much of what I would consider "intentional recalibration". This happens often enough to, in my opinion, rethink the concept of our initial development being firmly established at such an early age.

 

 

RE your second section: I agree. But even the Science Channel puts some "junk" presentations into their programming. Perhaps it is bacause there isn't enough "real" science presentations to fill the 24 hour programming. I mean, searching for Bigfoot isn't good science nor is any other programming based only on mythology that has no factual support.

Quite right Mh about the changes over time , I cant speak for anyone else very confirmedly. But If I look back at who I was as a kid , and who I am now ( at my best) those are two really similar mes.

Yeah about the unfortunate choice of filler , but , like conservationists going to far in requiring everyone to have the exact same attitudes as they do , end up losing more folks from on the fence than winning them IMO

Edited January 21, 2014 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Yeah about the unfortunate choice of filler , but , like conservationists going to far in requiring everyone to have the exact same attitudes as they do , end up losing more folks from on the fence than winning them IMO

Yep. And I do try to remember that there are many people who believe in things that I am unable to rationalize. But I'm not afraid to speak about my reality.

[Stosh]

I guess they ,who like the bigfoot stuff , for the most part are subconsciously wanting things to be a bit different than they are , they like a bit of mystery and unknown out there

, just like I like to think about whales wandering the seas , and think it would suck if there werent any ,, even if I will never see them., and it would be cool if they would go ahead and clone some of the species which didnt go extinct all that long ago.

I think mammoths ranged right up until just a few thousand years ago , and they could still be feasible.

It'd be nice if an oil company wanted to make a good impression , get some good publicity ( instead of oil slicks) , and it could tie together that 'yes some things go wrong' , but they want to have them returned pristine as much as the public does.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, I guess you are right. If "real" life isn't exciting enough for you you would want Bigfoots, aliens, Nessies, and all those other things.

 

 

The scientists are remaining quite but they have been working with chickens to retro-evolve the dinosaur and there was a baby mammoth found in Russia, completely frozen with nearly all its organs still viable for DNA extraction to make new mammoths.

 

The whales are pretty much protected and monitored now so I doubt we will see any further extinction there.

[Stosh]

There was a documentary about at least one frozen mammoth, how they chopped it out of the permafrost and flew it somewhere, but I didnt see the next installment suggested ,which was to go forward clone it and pop the embryo in an elephant.

Retro evolving a dinosaur ? neat if it can be done, so long as it doesnt go all Jurrassic park on us

Im not sure about using a chicken though...Im thinking evolutionary trails are so contorted geneticswise... youd have to know what pattern was the right one, to go back and make it,.. ( circular reasoning)

 

And whales .. I hope youre right. Attitudes shift .

[Marblehead]

Yeah, I've not seen any follow-up regarding the mammoth. If they weren't successful I could understand holding back on publicity.

 

I think the chicken thing was just a test. From what I recall, they tripped the gene to grow teeth in its mouth as well as tripped the gene to grow a tail. Haven't seen anything further on that either.

[Stosh]

_{I thought chickens already had tails? I think we may be off topic.}

[Marblehead]

Yes, we have gone off topic again. Cause and effect makes that happen. I have no other excuse.

 

 

Okay. Back to the thread topic; that is, the suggestion that people would be much more evil than we already are if we thought we could get away with acting out our subconscious desires.

 

I'm sure this would be the case. But then I must argue that the opposite would also be true, that people would be much nicer and open to others if they thought that others would not try to take advantage of them.

 

I still have faith in humanity. There! I used a word I rarely use: Faith.

 

Nature and nurture. The good vs the bad. But between the two there are those who are beyond judgement.

[Stosh]

Well I like to stay away from using the word evil, doing that , I'd agree that having less limitations we would indeed likely pursue our subc-desires farther. Also Id have to agree less caution would be needed if, there werent so many hostile ape-jerks to deal with - essentially teaching cautious behaviors.

 

Faith in humanity , well such as that seems to mean that humanity has not as yet lived up to its side of the equasion, though we'd want it to .. and so we havent gone rogue back at humanity . Which it actually deserves.

 

Nature and nurture equate to good and bad? ( I get the idea , I just dont share that opinion because ther is natural good ves bad and nurtured ideas about such ) ... but who is beyond judgement by whom??

Edited January 22, 2014 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Okay, we kinda' agree. Hehehe.

 

No, I didn't mean to equate 'nature vs nurture' to 'good vs bad'. That was my error in expressing myself.

 

Beyond judgement: Beyond judgement by anyone. That is to say, if we do nothing that effects others there would be no reason for anyone to judge us. This sounds strange perhaps, but think about it. If we journey through life invisible who would know we were even there? To walk our path and leave no trace. How could anyone judge something (someone) who doesn't exist?

[Stosh]

Okay, we kinda' agree. Hehehe.

 

No, I didn't mean to equate 'nature vs nurture' to 'good vs bad'. That was my error in expressing myself.

 

Beyond judgement: Beyond judgement by anyone. That is to say, if we do nothing that effects others there would be no reason for anyone to judge us. This sounds strange perhaps, but think about it. If we journey through life invisible who would know we were even there? To walk our path and leave no trace. How could anyone judge something (someone) who doesn't exist?

I like that , but need to puzzle about it a little , its very creative ... hmmmm

[Stosh]

Well no , you couldnt fairly judge someone poorly or well, by even conventional standards , if they arent having any impact , bearing responsibility etc .

But a parent watching their baby being swallowed by a python, and not doing anything about it ,, would be another situation , Yes?