Posted on (UTC-4)
2017-06-02 @ 11:39:14
oups, nothing to see here..
2017-06-01 @ 15:17:03
I think that maybe luck shouldn’t even be considered part of the equation when one tries to formulate an approach to “success” (different thing for different people), because it’s something that’s completely out of our control – I like these sayings about “creating your own luck” as well (as a motivational input), but, to me, the meaning of the word is something created out of chance not ones own actions – so we might as well disregard it completely..
What I took as a valid point from the first section (not) listening to successfull people – is that just because someone “succeeded” does not mean that their advice nessesarily hold any more value and their advice should be scrutinized just as closely as any other advice. There’s a tendency in modern society to hail anyone who can make alot of money as someone worthy of extraordinary attention, not asking question about how they did it (how they behaved towards other people, what general attitude they hold about life, values and what not..). Think about how often money is involved when we talk about “successfull” people.. To me, fuck money, I want hapiness, love and purpose ;-)
I agree with your take on also searching for things that could work for you outside mainstream science!
As well as I don’t find the negative visualization as something promoting my general wellbeing or energy levels, it’s been a professional habit as a programmer to try and think of obstacles before they arose and I’ve seen how it’s influenced me in my private life, not a positive effect is all I can say and I’m very happy to see it turning around as well as I feel a positive effect as a result of the ongoing change in that area..
2017-05-24 @ 10:22:38
Define “good” ;-) I’m the type that learn things quickly, so I could say that I’m “good” at alot of things, but I’ve never excelled at anything really, so maybe I’m not “good” at anything.. I work as a programmer, but I don’t care about it, tired of sitting behind a screen, don’t want to keep up with the technical side of things.. I play alot of sports, but tried coaching and that’s not for me – play piano but can’t sing – care about society, civilization, culture, etc. but no so in a degree that I’ve really dived into it.. I guess most of all I just like to talk openheartedly with people.. spread the love kind’a hippie-thing right ;-)
Playing with the thoughts of writing, but so far it’s only journaling that I’ve accomplished..
I recently read one of these “5 questions to help you find your purpose”-articles, question 2 was “What do you notice?”, that was an angle I hadn’t considered before.. me being an app-developer of course I notice bad design or faulty apps, but what else springs naturally into my perception, this I’ll be more aware of from now on.. I think it makes sense that we would naturally notice things that appeal to our “purpose-full-skill”, right? Have you read something about that on your tour of personal development?
Ps. great article, might not agree with all of it, but well written and I think it’s a very valid point not to accept all this mainstream personal development junk floating about :-)
2017-05-23 @ 16:45:58
Well.. I find your openness and the go-with-it attitude inspiring! – I don’t know where I’ll end up, but I feel like I wouldn’t mind ending up the same way as you as long as I had my passion.. my problem is, I’m not even sure what my passion is…
2017-04-15 @ 07:25:12
Might be blinded by some sort of admiration for Mckenna, but still feel that he’s quite right on the money with that statement..In the way that Culture isn’t something that wants what’s best for you, it’s doesn’t care about you; culture is a steamrolling train directed by whatever infatuates a majority of people, sure there are good things to be found in it, but it would be a mistake to assume that it’s your FRIEND, incorporating an evaluation of what’s good for You.. It is as you in some way say, to be dissected, discerned and extrapolated for it’s “good” findings.. you don’t do that with Friends..
2015-11-16 @ 17:15:59
Great article, well written and great underlining point – and I’m not even into these superheroes Marvel/DC-thingy’s – Sitting here wanting to go out and get hurt so I can learn myself to feel it and thereby release it! Great stuff :-)
2015-10-17 @ 06:57:38
Based on the fact that you have done no attempt to share any basic understanding of your newfound truth other than to put forward the fact that it can only be understood by subjective experience, no understanding can really take place can it.. When – “as a general rule with people” – you have trouble communicating your message / making your perception understandable to other human beings, then maybe, just maybe, you and your form of communication might be the variable promoting the lack of understanding that you seemingly experience.. I don’t like the route this conversation is taking as it seems ridden with your socalled ego.. out of all the things I wrote and the original discussion in mind, was this reply really necessary?
2015-10-11 @ 16:02:01
Wow, all books cover interesting subjects, I want to read them all! – great list, thanks for the inspiration :-)
2015-10-08 @ 11:04:09
Just because you experience a moment of consciousness in which a previously confusing subject becomes “clear” does not inherently bring whatever meaning you found to the level where it can postulated to be absolute truth. No matter how much you feel it is so. If you don’t consider your fallibility as a human being as a part of your perception, you are fooling yourself.
You are human consciousness and you so clearly postulate that you have advanced far enough to see the golden arrow of these correlations, so yes, from your point of view at least, human consciousness apparently has advanced so far.. now then, it must be your most prestigous purpose to evovle the rest of humanity on to your level, as it is the purpose of the universe…
There’s a saying that, if you learn something you can do it, but only if you understand it, you can teach it.. Perhaps it is so with both the psychedelic experience as well as your newfound truth, it’s incommunicable because it isn’t truly understood…
Now we’re actually moving on the original subject at hand, because I have to acknowledge the fact that, the mentioned definition of compassion does not correlate completely with my perception of the word – as I too, as mentioned, see the word pity as something of looking down at the subject at hand, thereby putting yourself above others which, in all regards, I agree, is one of the most clear signs of indulgence of ones own socalled ego….. Having said that, pity and compassion are two different words, so they do not hold the same inherent meaning. So, to me, still, compassion, though defined as partly pity, does not include the bias of degradation towards the other in the way that I percieve pity to do, thereby – for me – there does not have to be indulgence of ego included in the compassionate act. To ellaborate further I connect empathy, compassion and the following helping action together when I think of the word compassion. With regards to self-indulgence of the socalled ego, we agree, this is not something to be pursued by human beings, that’s why I tried to point out earlier that if pity where to replace the word compassion, I would agree much more.. But you did not acknowledge this..
I can’t say that Your perception of the word compassion is “wrong” as well as you can’t say that My perception of the word compassion is “wrong”, because the word means what it means to each of us by simple subjective experience and what memories/experiences we connect with the word in our linguistic understanding. The “normal” definition put forward by google gives us a base from which to explore and try to find common ground but it cannot be considered the ultimate truth of the word..
It’s funny, because as I’ve pointed out earlier, there’s an illogical streak to your approach, you are “unwilling to nurture the needs of the ego in others”, yet you are willing to perform help, so, as said before, when that receiving part does not have the ego subdued as you, then that person will most likely consider your help a compassionate act, and – in your perception – their ego will be self-indulged.. So to carry out your approach to the fullest, you would have not to help any people at all, but this contradicts any notion of sense in a wellbalanced intelligent human being.. As you replied earlier, “As for whether one on the receiving end of any help I might offer, what they perceive is their issue, not mine. The only person anyone has any control over is oneself” (to which I completely agree), so you have to acknowledge that you can’t control whether any of your actions, really, in life nurture the need of the ego in others, as it is out of your control..
I did not use the word “normal/ordinary” in regards to something I don’t understand, I used the term in relation to the claims you made about holding the true teaching of the previously mentioned people. It was done in a context to explain the use of the word delusional and as to why you should not consider it as an personal attack. It’s almost as if you use every given chance to elaborate on things, even though your elaborations are pretty straight forward knowledge for any freethinking individual, thereby lengthening the conversation to a somewhat unnecessary degree..
I appreciate the time you have taken to talk about this original post, which at this point actually make the same sense it did at quite an earlier stage, that you connect compassion with self-indulgence of the ego and I don’t. I really don’t feel the need to talk any further because I now have an understanding with which I can find peace. Let us continue on in our different consciousness’ where you help people without emotional investment and I help people compassionably and they percieve it as they may.. I think we’ll both make the world a better place to be by helping however we do it and maybe we’ll even be quite successfull at furfilling the purpose of the universe.
All the best to you :-)
2015-10-07 @ 19:22:26
I can easily see how it could be percieved as an attack, that is why I wanted to underline my true feeling, that I feel no ill will towards you and I respect your entitlement to have whatever perception that gives you balance and prosperity in life as I expect you to respect mine. I’m not saying that you Are delusional, but an encounter with any man, not just you, professing these achievements/insights is in my perception “seemingly” delusional behaviour (you must be able to see that those claims are not ordinary). (I don’t know you, my experience of your existence is only the words uttered in this conversation, so I have no basis to make any judgment on you other than my reflections on these mentioned words, which I give to you as honestly and respectful as I possibly can). But somehow you must have the feeling that your perception of the underlining message that these seemingly great minds try to share is exactly the right one, though clearly without any external confirmation hereof.. and you seem to devalue emotional confirmation as something that should be subdued (seeing as how the emotional confirmation of the compassionate act is self-indulgence of the ego) so it can’t be the emotional felt experience of your perception that you base your correctness of your conclusions on, so it must then be logical rational conclusion? But logical rational conclusion should be easily communicable as it is the inherent nature of logic to be so.. What I’m simply asking, is how do you “know” that your perception of these messages are “correct”? – in order to do so you must somehow also understand the inherent nature of the universe and the purpose of existence as any truly transcendent insight should bring and message hereof would reveal to a mind who understands its true meaning.. unless their messages in fact reveal that they were only human beings with a sound mind expressing their own percieved truths without any form of divinity or transcendence, which in case still would bring me back to the question of how could you possible be sure, without a shadow of a doubt, that this is the case..?
I agree that we look at the definition from different compilations of consciousness and yes you are right, I still can’t understand why you in your original post and seemingly continously devalue compassion as something that can only be seen as indulgence of the ego and should not be pursued by a human being – and as I have pointed out, you have still not presented any logical sound argumentation to back up your claim other than the previous writings of another human being. I’m sure that if I would use the time to do so, I could find many other human beings bringing forth the postulation that compassion is something to be exerted into existence with all of your heart, but neither him or them comprise an argument in and of itself..
In all honesty it actually seems more that you’re actually arguing the worn out repeated spiritual message of surpressing the ego more than compassion itself. So the issue is not compassion but the socalled ego. So compassion exerted by a person with a subdued ego, which – as I have said repeatedly – is still compassion, but I think you recategorize as “help”, is not something to abstain from..? or at the very least can we agree that it is worthy of human pursuit to “help” other people with or without emotional investment?
My question into your “purpose” and pursuit in life was not about expecting there to be any certain goal or such as I agree wholeheartedly with both elements of your feedback, advancing one own consciousness and living life day to day. My point was to understand your view on what existence is and what “meaning” you see in it for you, hoping that it would forward my understanding of how the removal of compassion would serve a “positive” effect in your view of existence. (?)
I was assuming (and hoping) that you do feel emotions, which was the point of the small pun, and I agree that being emotional reactive is not something to be aspired to, but in my experience absorbing any emotion with the fullest consciousness is what enables me to process it and see it’s true origin and nature.. Those found to sustain my wished orientation of development is empowered, the others is disassemble at the best of my ability..
2015-10-07 @ 10:31:13
I’m sorry, but we’re not really going anywhere here are we.. to me it seems borderline delusional to put forward to know the true teaching of Buddha, Jesus, Nietzsche and this Don Juan Matus – which I had not heard of before so thank you for that – despite never having met or conversed with any of the mentioned people.. only to go on and postulate not only what mistakes Freud makes in his approach to psychology, but also that you have somehow “found” the ego and subdue’d it to be in complete control of your emotions.. how did the ego represents itself to you so that you could know it was the ego and not just yourself or a part of “who you are/were”?
I guess I don’t need to point it out to someone who doesn’t feel emotions or has any conscious ground to be defensive about, but this is – again – not meant as a personal attack, but simply what impressions your writing leaves me with..
You don’t need to bolster your contention that our consciousness is governed by definitions, we have already agreed on this.. but sadly, definitions of words is needed in order to communicate, at least untill they succeed in making that brain-to-brain interface we clearly miss ;-)
The thing that generate any form of energy/emotion from me in this discussion is not that you have another point of view than mine, ’cause I will always acknowledge the fact that I can be wrong on any issue, as well as I guess I can on this one, as well as the universe/existence could in fact be so subjective, to the point that we’re both wrong and we’re both right.. But the fact that you can’t seem to put any arguments to the table as to why compassion should be a bad thing to exert other than you feel more cognitive healthy in your emotional-void-state-of-ego-lessness, leaves me, well, to say that I also feel very cognitive healthy in my state of emotional ripples where I only use my energy to alleviate negative emotions and expand positive emotions but not to erradicate them..
If I may, could I ask, what have you found to be your purpose of existence, or put in other words, what do you pursue in this experience that is this lifetime?
2015-10-07 @ 04:41:27
Who says compassion has to be emotionally constructed? It’s you that connect emotion and compassion, I don’t see that as a nessesity, why can’t it be logically constructed, ex. He needs water, I have water, I’m not thirsty, here have water.. logical distribution of resources, not nessesarily emotional..
(Again from google) “Compassion is the response to the suffering of others that motivates a desire to help” – for you to help others, you must have a desire/motivation to help (which in all logical sense must precede the action of helping), that’s compassion.. whether you allow an – in my eyes, positive – emotional response or you’re able to surpress it does not change the fact that it is defined as compassion.. for your cognitive process to understand that they even need help for you to exert, you need to have compassion (a understanding of their situation)..
What’s even a bit illogical about promoting this non-emational approach and still helping is the fact that – at least in this current world – the recieving party most likely will not share your non-emotional approach and thereby have their “ego’s” self-pity indulged (as you see it) by their emotional impact of your non-emotional-compassionate-act of helping.. So your non-emotional-approach changes nothing about your the effect of your helping act other than your own experience of it..
What is this ego you talk of so much, have you found it yet or is it in fact still an abstract object that you have assigned values and attributes?
2015-10-06 @ 05:35:59
I’m sorry but this seems a bit useless, yes we agree that definitions is the limitation of our consciousness in the same way that language is the limit of our communication, at least in this forum.. You put forward your perceptions in wordly form supposing you have absolute knowledge about the true meaning of Nietzsche, Jesus, Buddha and your own attitude seems to be moulded out of words of another human being which you seem to put on a pedistal (Don Juan Matus) in what is the right way to perceive and enact your existence, to achieve… what? – for me to say that absolute knowledge doesn’t exist would be self-contradictory, but really.. on what do you base the reality that you possess it on these subjects? – I don’t want this to come off as some sort of personal attack, it’s really not! – you seem intelligent, wellspoken and clearly have a depth of investigation into writings/thoughts of others – this is just speaking straight from what your posts feed of thoughts..
To remove self-pity is a great ambition in which I have to agree but I do not agree that removing self-pity results in the removal of compassion – you even write that the “warrior” will help others in certain situations, then what description do you use of the operative in effect in those situtations if not compassion? – especially if the situation could be defined as one where the help by the warrior does not further his own existence in any way – in order to understand that they need help, he needs to understand their situation in which they need to be relieved, that is, the understanding of anothers perception of a dire reality, which to me is compassion.. but haven’t we in the end just done a loop and come down to; that I have one perception of the word compassion and you have another?
From my point of view I don’t look to mould the objectives of my existence from only what theoretical musings – of others and myself – can rationally conclude, but I look at my existence as it is before me, a world of insane diversity between over complacent obesity-ridden rich people trying to feed the void of suffering inside them with the external things to the kid dying in the side of a dirtroad from starvation and thirst – one of these cases needs compassion from other people..
2015-10-04 @ 18:05:42
I haven’t read alot of Nietzsche, so to go into whether or not his “ubermensch” would have/show compassion would be pretentious of me, I can only say that I would surely hope so, but from the ‘feel’ I get from him I could easily imagine that he didn’t..
But what I then think it boils down to, is the perception/definition of words, I don’t like pity either, and if you replace the word compassion with pity in the post above, I would agree much more.. and that could surely be defended logically / defintion-wise, I acknowledge that.. But to me, looking at the synonyms of the word compassion (from google):
Pity, sympathy, feeling, fellow feeling, empathy, understanding, care, concern, solicitude, solicitousness, sensitivity, tender-heartedness, soft-heartedness, warm-heartedness, warmth, love, brotherly love, tenderness, gentleness, mercy, mercifulness, leniency, lenience, tolerance, consideration, kindness, humanity, humaneness, kind-heartedness, charity, benevolence
Pity is the One word of all those that carries some negative meaning (to me pity also represents somehow looking down upon the subject at hand) – for me and my understanding of the word compassion, it ‘rhymes’ much more with the words of empathy, understanding, care, warm-heartedness, love, kindness, humanity.. So maybe that’s just what it is..
2015-10-04 @ 14:15:11
What kind of sick mirror is this universe… I need to get my shit together.. I need to .. Be that guy.. go places! – Loved this, thx! :-D
2015-10-04 @ 13:57:52
Man.. Stop slaying the dragon that isn’t there.. Are you actually proposing restraining from feeling and expression compassion ?! Is that really the epitomy of intelligent accomplishment, to be able to argue why we should not pursue one of the most beautiful expressions of existence.. So the dog seen on a video, trying by all of it’s ability to push water on a suffocating fish via the puddles nearby, is simply the dog furfilling emotional self-indulgence? – I don’t know if I completely misunderstood your point, but my understanding of what you wrote just simply wrongs my perception of life and what we need to pursue as human beings..
2015-09-09 @ 07:43:34
2015-08-21 @ 17:53:57
Nice piece, enjoyed reading it – thx :-)
2015-07-29 @ 07:38:46
Looking up the definition of vanity, I would have to agree – but somehow looking at it like this makes sense to me; one’s fear of rejection could be based on the latter perception of one’s character by others if rejected (which would be the expected outcome if low selfesteem’ed) – so not approaching her is not due to the rejection itself but due to the vanity of one’s perception in the eyes of the others around – also supported by the notion that it’s easier to approach someone who might reject you if noone else is around.. (There was a image with the thinkings of a philosopher just recently – I’m not what I think I am, I’m not what you think I am, I’m what I think you think I am)
2015-07-20 @ 18:47:23
Brilliant turn of events! :-D
2015-07-15 @ 19:33:31
Great stuff, really appreciate this!
2015-07-14 @ 16:46:06
@anjelica – you should appreciate this ;-) Great man!
2015-07-13 @ 18:08:42
Judgemental, not so awesome..
I like the message, be awesome, it’s possible!
2015-07-10 @ 18:10:21
Sorry, didn’t see you had replied to this :-)
I can completely align with that, go with both perspectives at once – I believe that’s the most “correct” stance to take to this issue, because we don’t really know ;-)
When you use the word “self”, what does that mean to you?
I can totally agree with the thought that we “basically” are the entire universe, that our consciousness is the energy of the entire universe “connected” to this single entity, but I fail to see how that makes the self “illusory”, because “we” :-) have manifested as these seperate entities and though we “behind” all this, is the entirety of it all, these entities are just as real as the rest of the universe, right?
If this entity is an illusion, then it’s all an illusion isn’t it? then there’s nothing “real”, I think it’s the word illusion that bothers me in this context… Hope it makes sense and thx for your response :-)
2015-07-05 @ 12:48:08
2015-07-04 @ 09:23:32
I’m sorry to say this, but I’m getting tired of this “The self is an illusion”-enigma – why can’t we just accept the fact that – though there may be underlining connections between ourselves and the universe and eachother in some form or way (I’m not discarding that possibility, far from it..but..) – the direct experiential truth to existence is that You are an individual and you have control of this entity that is You, the self is awareness of the entity that is You and is almost more “real” than anything else ’cause it’s the foundation of what makes you You.. loose that, like I imagine an alzheimers patient does, and that person is no longer “Himself” but rather just a shadow in form of a human body left in limbo.. no wonder some describe it like “turning into a vegetable”, a thing without consciousness.. a thing without “Self”..
There’s no need to transcend what you are ’cause it can’t be done (what is it that people expect to happen?).. Why is it that so many is sensible enough to reject religion and it’s dogmatic influence but somehow keeps on regurgitating the most fundamental underlining to its delusional narrative.. transcendence..
Maybe I have different interpretation of the word “Self”, maybe there’s something I’m missing in what is trying to be said, but I’m just expressing my honest feelings here, it’s what I feel..
2015-07-04 @ 07:27:07
Wow, well put !
2015-06-19 @ 10:35:31
Damn I liked that, thx !
2015-06-16 @ 09:38:08
Yep but as with everything in this universe, we assign ‘something’ to be doing the writing and sitting, that ‘something’ is ‘you’ – the entity – if you want to remove the designation ‘you’ from this equation, then you have to remove the designation of ‘brain’ as well – I guess if you want to put the entire existence of this universe into such a template and say that there is nothing, no earth, no sun, just atoms and energy/vibrations resulting in these patterns that we describe as ‘writing’ and ‘sitting’ – which would then not exist as concepts as well – then yes you can say that ‘you’ don’t exist, but that’s just lyrical nonsense which serves no purpose in describing our actual experience.. but I actually don’t think this is what you’re saying.. I just want to point out that saying ‘there is writing / sitting’ is not a better description than saying ‘I am writing / sitting’, the latter is a more precise/better description of the experience happening in our common perception of it.. the “I/you” is the distinction of your existence in relation to the rest of the universe..
I think maybe now I’m understanding what you’re trying to say, but I’m sorry to say it’s completely useless and of no value to the understanding of experience of existence, you’re playing logical philosophy fallacy – yes the “you” that we have in our mind is not the “actual you” as the flower we see is not the flower but an interpretation of the electric signals our brain have received from the photons that our eyes have registred reflecting off of the “actual flower pattern of atoms/vibrations”, therefore to say that the flower we percieve actually doesn’t exist could be defended but really, that’s bringing the discussion of reality to an absurd level ’cause that to me is just reality of experience, otherwise we’re nickpicking at direct experience which to me is just playing in imaginationland.. great fun but to no point other than that, having fun..
You seem hooked on this worn out spiritual enigma that “there is no you” and you’re clearly very intelligent and seem to have constructed an abstract concept that in your mind supports this phrase.. but really, I think if we want to move forward in our understanding of ourselves and this experience called life, we should try to focus on “what is” and not be playing these games of words to accommodate old established beliefs..
Bottomline (as I see it), there’s the entity of you, you control the movements of this entity, in your mind you have a representation of yourself, this representation is your self-awareness if you did not have this representation in your mind you would not be self-aware.. this representation is not “real” in and of itself but it represents something “real” and therefore I would say that this representation exists (because it does, I’m here physically) to me it seems that you are nickpicking and say that because the representation is only that, a representation, it does not exist (which I can’t really argue with logically, but to me the direct link between this representation and experienced reality supports the use of the word exists..)
“The brain comes up with the idea of moving somewhere, but because the self-illusion is so strong, the self immediately assumes it was its idea” – if, as I see it, the self Is the brain then it Did come up with the idea…
Hehe yeah we don’t really seem to be going anywhere here – to me the “me/you” still represents the conscious part of the brain which is making the free-will-choices.. I wonder how you’re experiencing your life if you really believe what you are putting forward, it must be a somewhat weird experience, and I really don’t mean that in any condescending way, just curious.. I don’t know if you’ll feel the need to reply, but I too have enjoyed this talk and respect and accept you to have your view on life..
2015-06-15 @ 19:54:13
Nah don’t think it’s your fault, this is complicated stuff, I think words are probably insufficient to communicate what strange concepts we have in our heads ;-)
I think I’m getting my head better around what you’re getting at, cause yeah obviously there must have been movement/animation before I became self-aware, which I would think is the point that the “me/you” is created/realized and memories starts being stocked in relation to this realization.. So yes there is a period where the body functions/learns/evolves without a “me/you”, in what I would refer to as a more primitive/primordial state of being – which I’m guessing is what you mean is the brain-state that exists beneath the “you”?
But I still think the creation/realization of “me/you” is a “natural” part of the brain evolving, synapses being created, externalities being interpreted/understood, as well as body motorskills being developed (including limits of control = this body) – so I still see the “me/you” as a integrated “part” of the brain not as something separate.. You ask why is the self needed, I think the self is needed in order to be self-aware – it’s implied in the word itself.. how could there be thoughts if there wasn’t this “I” to percieve them, sounds to me like saying there is light without any eyes to see it..
Hmm I’m sorry that makes no sense to me, if “you” don’t have free will, then that’s not free will.. I still think I’m having trouble envisioning that separation between the brain and “you” that you’re proposing..
I get twist with the google car, but I think the pivotal point is as you say “the desire to move is created inside the car/human itself” – I would say from that we should be able to make a stance on free will, either “I/me/you” decides consciously to move (free will) or the “brain/deeper level of instinct/don’t know what to call this creation of yours ;-)” makes the decision, sends the order, “me/you” becomes aware of the decision to move (that “it” thinks it just took) and then moves (not free will) – how would you describe this movement-decision-process with your concept?
I’m not gonna sit here and say that I’m in total control of my thoughts, cause that would be a lie, but the “STOP”-technique works quite good for me.. (when I catch my mind thinking negative/ not-constructive thoughts, I think of a loud voice shouting “STOP” and usually the flow stops and I can distract my thinking with other thoughts)
I think I understand the level at which you think the separation exists, but to me I still can’t see that separation..
2015-06-11 @ 05:25:48
Just stumbled across this, made me laugh and think about this conversation – http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/23sdUm/1NvrzvbZo:U-BvzhBq/www.pi.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/creation.html
Ps. I don’t think there’s a right and wrong in this talk – just a difference of perception about things we will probably never know ;-)
2015-06-11 @ 03:53:26
I would agree that we only have partial control, cause yeah there’s a level to the brain/mind that comes up with things I have no idea where is coming from I absolutely grant you that, but maybe I’m reading you wrong but to me it seems like you’re putting it forward like the “brain” is in control and “you” are just some small part created by the brain for the illusion of control – whereas I see it much more like controlling a car, “you” might only have the steering wheel, the pedals and the gearstick but with that you are controlling where to go, when to go faster/slower when to rev the engine and when to cruise in 5th.. there’s alot of different other processes going on in the car that you have no control over, but I’d say if I had to pick some that’s the ones I would go with.. So if the brain “created” me, which is an assumption you’re making (I think I would put more like, the brain realized that it was “me” during experiences growing up) but either way, then that “me” – in my view – would be to identify the boss of the company – sure there are underlying working processes, but “you” – as the boss – can influence those processes by active engagement with those processes.. You can even order up thoughts and images of your own – try imagining a purple elephant jumping into a green river, and boom, the brain follows your command – I’d say that’s control..
But to try and narrow it down further, I would say we’re talking about two issues here,
1. free will (which it basically sounds like you’re denying(?) and that I’m advocating)
2. the definition of “you” (which you seem to say is a illusionary construct by the “thing” in control of your free will(?) – where I’d due to my belief in free will is leaning towards a mindly representation of the individual entity and the experiences that I’ve had in this very weird existence)
On a post note, I agree very strongly with your feeling of something not fitting I too feel there’s another level to this existence, but I also do feel that I have control over my existence (to some extent of course ;-))
2015-06-10 @ 07:43:08
If the brain came up with the idea of “you”, isn’t “you” then the brain, don’t “you” exist then? aren’t “You” in control if you’re the brain and the brain is the one doing “whatever” – putting another word instead of You (in this case “brain”) doesn’t refrain You from existing, You exist my friend and you have plenty of control, use it wisely.. ;-)
2015-05-30 @ 06:27:29
2013-06-05 @ 03:42:44
Just blew my mind :-D