There is one choice, 2 votes for Esfuerzo's debate

Altered Perception

• experience + extrapolation = assumption

  there is no one right choice. All interpretation is subjective. Everyone assimilates and accomedates, if you put the right weight of idea a, in conjuction with the right measure of experience b, you can make someone beleive anything as much as you want, to the extent of your control. Think of total institutions, conditioning means everything of how people think.
  
  So if i raised you with tame lions, then stuck you in the wilderness, yes your mind isn't going to weigh those beasts in the distance as a plausible threat to your well-being.

  100%  Voted for by Molzahn, pnktrky.

  View 64 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    January 18, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    it depends, because then we also have the issue of even deeper seated fears, such as phobias, that can even be irrationally based. Fear is a reaction that is very hard to control.
  • 
    grant
    January 19, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Every choice the brain makes is the right one by the mere fact that they have been made for that moment. If the same circumstance presents itself then the same or different choice may be made. The brain makes it's right choices consistantly. None can ever be wrong because they have already been made which makes them always right at the time. To consider them wrong later is just the brain making the RIGHT choice later not to repeat the RIGHT choice of before if the same situation presents itself. Anyway, we are only describing brain activity and we are not our brains anymore than we are our lungs.
  • 
    grant
    January 19, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    If you consider they are RIGHT AT THE MOMENT then they are right for that moment. What you think makes them wrong later is the different circumstance later where you can see how the same action would not be appropriate for that later moment. So one simply deals with the current moment. Every moment creates new action. To judge old actions that were right at the time is missing the current moment. Judging takes us away from the experience of now because judging is always after the fact. Judging is a constant looking back.
  • 
    grant
    January 19, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Try surviving without your lungs. You cant. In your concession that our brains has more control shows that there is some understanding by you that you are not your brain. E.g "My brain has control over me". Therefore one could then reasonably ask "who is the ME that my brain has control over". Do you see what I mean? There is one's life and then there is one's brain that wants to control it. The lungs are no more interested in control than a tree or a slug. I agree that the brain is a control freak. Fortunately it is not who we are and so it only thinks it is in control. And it will think what ever it likes. What it thinks does not make it true. Thinking is just YOUR brains phenomenal function. The lungs perform other functions. The statement "i think therefore i am" is total propaganda. The brain loves this statement. It helps it's delusional idea that it is in control.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    January 20, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    I questioned you on this before grant, but I don't think you answered. What then, pray tell, is me, if not my brain? What else could I possibly identify myself with other than the mental (all that is present)? The only thing I could think of would be the spirit, which is more of a free living domination if you have ever experienced it (quite remarkable I must say) but you don't seem to identify with that. So what then? You are not a nihilist (another label, yes) so what then? If you believe that the self exists then what is the nature of this self?
  • 
    grant
    January 20, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    When one experiences now there is no self. Therefore no self to IDENTIFY with, therefore (in reality) no self identity. Esfuerzo did not question me on my questioning of his comment; E,"My brain has control over me". G, "Who is the ME that my brain has control over". There are two entities here, the "me" and the me's brain. Esfuerzo has agreed with the fact we aren't our brains without either realising it, or he is avoiding something because it is tough to get THE brain to think about itself as not US. Probably the latter. THE SELF EXISTS BUT ONLY AS A MIND PROJECTION. When thoughts stop (analysis and judgement) one is then IN THE NOW. When experiencing NOW the self is not experienced. This has happened to me once for about an hour. From this particular NOW experience one can imagine what it would be like to be living IN THE NOW constantly. It IS the infinite. There is no emotion or physical sensations PERIOD. The physical sensations that are EMOTIONS produce analysis and judgements. With no mind projected self there is none. No SELF in the NOW.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    January 20, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    That's called non-existence, grant. This particular brand of 'oneness' can be simply achieved through death (Bible refers to it as Sheol). What you are trying to say is that nothingness is something, thus a state of nothingness is describable as a particular self state. Rather, it is the lack thereof of state, of anything really. With your mind shut off, you are nothing.
    
    Explain to me how this experience of experiencing nothing differs from death in that one experiences nothing, or even zombification (what I used to refer to as you being a vegetable) of which one is no longer conscious but only appears to be so.
  • 
    grant
    January 20, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    I cant compare it with death because i haven't died. I dunno what physical death is like. What i experienced was the death of ego (which is self as "self" is an ego construct). And so it IS the experience of no-thing (things being objects or mind projected constructs), but really (in reality beyond the un-real ego) it is the experience of everything without a point of view. The normal point to view things from is the ego, so without this point of view there is no attachment, no emotional or physical sensation of. Eastern religions label this state Samadhi (i believe, if my spelling is correct). If that sounds a bit exotic it is just total non-thought (remembering that without thought there is no judgement, evaluation or placement of values, no measuring or comparing, no analysis). In terms of "simply achieved through death" this only alludes to the question "what is death". Death appears to be
    "death of ego" and as physical matter (including our body/minds) appears to be an ego construct then this state is obviously achievable during life ("heaven is at hand" as they say). My accidental experience of "samadhi" ended when my first thought arrived. It is easy to remember ones first thought after an hour of no thought and it was "I want this experience to continue forever". And so the ego was back to end this non-ego state and (of course) it ended it with the statement of DESIRE "I want". As i said I entered this state through no desire, but by accident. Desire ended this state but did not begin it. "Desire" is of the ego. This is currently about the best way my brain can understand it and express it in words (this is my brains best analysis of events. My best attempt to interlectualise a non-interlectual state).
  • • 
      TeChNoWC
      January 21, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      That is denying one's consciousness. De-evolution, not enlightenment. Inactive lump of crap, inanimate, unable to experience. Even if you did become animate miraculously you are still then a zombie. That is not a self. That means 'you' as you are is nothing. Nihilism.
      
      Zombies are pathetic. That's why they kill them in horror movies. Just like a walking carrot.
    • • 
        grant
        January 21, 2007
        Edit | Reply

        Consciousness?

        I think you misunderstand consciousness. What do you think consciousness is?
  • 
    frndofyaweh
    January 21, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Though hypnotherapy can help the mind overcome deep fears and phobias by delving into and reprogramming the subconscious source of the fear.Knowledge
    
    And until one deals with that unnecessary fear surely one cannot trust one's own mind to make a choice which is based upon that fear. Wisdom
    
    Even then, Esfuerzo is correct; We are all subject to altered perceptions in every event we experience.
    
    Yes,.....The Bible does cover this subject, as it also covers subjects on all human experiences.
    
    The Holy Spirit can give you clarity and only in that way can you have surety in guidance.
    
    Self reliance is not always perfect. heheee
    
    
  • 
    grant
    January 21, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    < I was paraphrasing you,

    but this is what you said, "I think you'll agree that our brain has the most control over our lives". There is an implied seperation here in your statement which defines two entities. Entity #1 "our brain", entity #2 "our lives". So there is one's life and there is one's brain that endeavours to control it. In reality the brain only THINKS it is in control, but is not. The brain only thinks it is in control because it thinks and thinking is only its phenomenal function. The heart beats with no control from the brain. The brain does not think such thoughts as "now heart please beat". The only reason that the heart does not think that IT is in control is because the phenomenal functions of the heart does NOT include thinking.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    January 21, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    grant

    Ok, re-thinking one would still have a consciousness, but an inert one. It is an admission to epiphenomenalism and even this time without any conscious backlash.
  • • 
      grant
      January 22, 2007
      Edit | Reply

      Nothing?

      You are right. In essence i am no thing. Not an object therefore not to be objectified.
    • • 
        TeChNoWC
        January 22, 2007
        Edit | Reply
        Then you do not exist. Absence of self and no thing is a claim of non existence. One cannot obtain the self then because there is no self to obtain. All that will be found is no thing.
        
        "In essence...".... Existentialists speak of essence preceding existence. This is to say that one is nothing and becomes something as they develop, that our embodiement is yet to produce our essence which is at the moment no thing. Would you agree to this? That one day the self becomes objectified (by the self alone)?
      • • 
          grant
          January 23, 2007
          Edit | Reply
          Then maybe i am talking of the "essence" that is infinite. The self is a mind projection. It is what we think we are. Or more accurately, what our brains think (we are). The brain is finite matter, so whatever it thinks (and self is a product of thought) is as finite as the brain. In the total absence of thought there is the total absence of the thought form that is SELF. LIFE, as i found out, can be experienced without self PURELY through essence. It is experience that is not FILTERED by an emotional body. Without the emotional body (such a body is actually made from thought forms of emotional conditioning) experience of life is pure. Pure because there is no separation. The same essence we all share is not separate from any other entity in the phenomenal universe. ALL IS ONE.
        • • 
            TeChNoWC
            January 23, 2007
            Edit | Reply
            You are saying that you do not reflect oneness because the world has no mentality, only you. Can one know for sure that the world does not? You may be robbing yourself of oneness in your pursuit.
            
            I think you quickly deleted another part of your comment but I saw it. One cannot trust the brain for knowledge pursuits. I have been trying to drum this into you for God knows how long now, but you still seem not to get it. You are caught up in your own convictions. This is mentality speaking. The world does not know, so how could you, with or without one's brain?
            
            You are making many assumptions I find in your pursuit of essence. I too seek this state of Being, but rather through the system of belief. Trust is the only component treated as a gifting for man's mental benefit, and to conquer one of their convicted state. Good luck on your path.
          • • 
              grant
              January 23, 2007
              Edit | Reply

              I'm not in pursuit of anything.
  • 
    grant
    January 21, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    < ok, the decent thing then. "i think you'll agree that our brain has much more control over our lives than our lungs ever could". It still presumes two separate entities. The brain and the life it has more control over. That was the point i was making.
  • 
    grant
    January 21, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Consciousness is not of the brain specifically like the difference to physical sleep and being physically awake. It is about conscious AWARENESS of which a tree has the equal of without a brain.
  • • 
      TeChNoWC
      January 22, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      How is a tree conscious of its existence? Consciousness is of the brain, my friend. Would love you to explain further, I really don't understand. When I am asleep I am unaware of my own existence. Even more so I have no internal experience except when I am dreaming, and in certain dream states I may be aware of my existence; other times its just like remembering a movie that you never actually saw.
    • • 
        grant
        January 23, 2007
        Edit | Reply
        A tree doesn't have a brain and doesn't need to be conscious of it's existance because a tree IS consciousness. Like a human experiencing non-thought (samadhi) IS consciousness. So not conscious of an existance seperate to other existances, but IS conciousness. No seperation between human and tree (and all else) in this pure state.
      • • 
          TeChNoWC
          January 23, 2007
          Edit | Reply
          Consciousness being an entity in itself, you mean. You can be consciousness itself. This is some mega crazy stuff.
          
          A tree is not conscious of anything, supposedly (if brain theory proves me wrong I will decline). How do you suppose a tree has reached oneness though through this? Must one have a believed organism that one resides in before they can become one with consciousness? It sounds as if such oneness could be achieved through non-existence (or even non-concievement, meaning that the object never did or never will exist). I still don't quite understand, but I would like to. Out with it, granty boy.
        • • 
            grant
            January 24, 2007
            Edit | Reply

            I have recommended particular books

            in the past which can do a better job than me. Do you wish for me to mention them again?
          • • 
              TeChNoWC
              January 24, 2007
              Edit | Reply

              If you wish

              However, I would rather that I got it from you
              
              
          • 
            grant
            January 24, 2007
            Edit | Reply

            Ok, I think first it is important to not look

            at any form of enlightenment, whether a 20 second flash or a permanent state, as an achievement (in reference to your statement "such oneness could be achieved". The reason i propose this takes away the idea that it is something to be pursued. In my opinion the reason particular self proclaiming enlightened ones write of their experience of these states they have FOUND themselves in is to simply allow the readers to forget any pursuit of such states. If you read such accounts it may become clear as to their message. The overpowering (actually empowering) message to me is that just merely trusting them to be honest accounts allows their words to permeate your being seemingly under the level of interlect. One of the best of these is "the power of now" because the writer gives subtle lessons in HOW to HEAR his words. E.g, when to pause between paragraphs and when to put the book down for the night (actually, that is the "onions" book). One probably shouldn't read these accounts in the normal studyish way as if one is going to be tested later. These books will always refer to old established christian doctrine (by the way), but bring a more human empathetic innterpretation. The basic premise, it seems to me, is that what these things say is to just relax about gaining anything from them because all is well anyway and when one is ready for any consciousness shift it will just happen without effort. The reverse is true with any application of effort (the worst case scenario of "reverse" would only be some confusion as the old attitudes try to remain steadfast). The upshot, regardless of actual experiences, is just a sense of understanding and recognition because the quality of such writings induces a warm trustfull feeling rather than a scolding damnation judgemental model. There is a sense in these of "spiritual family". There is this warmth to them and I am sure you will sense it. So, to my favourites "The Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle. "From Onions to Pearls" by S. Nadeem. These are the gentle ones orientated to western thought. I have some eastern favourites but they may be unneccessary for those of whos conditioning (unless in rebellion mode) is christian based.
  • 
    Applehead
    January 22, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    My faith in God as my guide helps self reliance. If I doubted myself all the time I would never believe my choices to be right therefore never making a decision. And also this would mean i am doubting Gods help also.
    
    Yes its good to value others opinion but if faced with a major decision, as an adult you are ultimately responsible for those decisions and should trust yourself to thoroughly think things through before making choices.
    
    Perception cannot be escaped it affects all of us so no matter how hard we try we have to use our past and present experiences plus our learned knowledge and common sense to help us reach a point were we trust our selves. If we make a mistake we live and learn once more. This is life.
  • • 
      TeChNoWC
      July 18, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      It is so hard to take you heaps seriously wit dat distracting ikkle bunny dere........
    • • 
        Applehead
        July 18, 2007
        Edit | Reply
        lol hhmm yeah that could be a problem hey or maybe it could be helpful.. we shall see
  • 
    frndofyaweh
    January 22, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    Seek advice....

    Advice is considered an altered perception as well. The Bible says; do not put surety in another mans handshake. From the original Arabic this has a broader meaning than just shaking hands. It actually means; man will always fail you, or has the potential to fail or mis-judge the situation.
    
    The Bible says, seek council. Council is the absolute answer and not always easy to find, if found at all.
    
    God in the Bible garantees that those who trust Him, do get council from Him and by my God above, I can say I have gotten plenty of council from Him, through His Holy Spirit and to this day,30 some years later, it has never ever failed me.
    
    Advice: perceptual or opinion
    Council: un-biased fact, sinlge best answer with no better alternative.
    
    Because of God, I am not self reliant, but very confident in my decisions and boldly make them. Figure that one out.
  • 
    Molzahn
    January 22, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    importance is an illusion, there are things that seemingly influence events drastically more, but without the butterfly flapping its wings the sum of the event can never be.
    
    
    
    there can be mistakes from a personal perspective, but it is condition that brought forth the event. nothing is a mistake, nothing is right, nothing is wrong
    
    -everything simply is-
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    January 22, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    Molzahn

    Which leads ultimately to the same conclusion, as because everything just is, then one does not need to stray from what is already considered. I just simply think that way because that's how it is. There is no obligation to act otherwise.
  • 
    grant
    January 23, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    < There are no mistakes.

    There are just new found opportunities not to repeat the same action if a similar event presented itself. Reacting to a situation, though, is likely to increase the likelyhood of an undesirable outcome if the opportunity to reflect on past experience is missed. It is to somewhat punish oneself if any reaction is regarded gravely as an error. Blame, whether self blame or otherwise, only perpetuates more reactivity. One cannot change events, but one can change one's reactivity to them. E.g; One day you look into the sun and it pains the eyes. If one reflects on the action the lesson is learnt even though the event (the sun in the sky) repeats. And so it is with emotional reactivity to emotional events. The human condition is one that is addicted to the pain or suffering for the normal human reaction to events. Suffering (self blame/punshment) is a way for many to know themselves because suffering becomes (from the outset of birth trauma) a known, therefore, comfortable relationship. The human conditioning of emotional/physical pain is, at least, known. The unknown is freedom from suffering and the ego (the conditioned self) fears the unknown.
  • 
    Molzahn
    February 2, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    TeChNoWC

    there is no right and wrong, nothing is a mistake - that is not to say there aren't more efficient methods of aiming to a desired path
  • • 
      TeChNoWC
      June 21, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      "there is no right and wrong, nothing is a mistake - that is not to say there aren't more efficient methods of aiming to a desired path"
      
      And must the desired one then be the correct one, or simply the most empowering? When our world is the mental...
      
      Forget knowledge and rationality. Embrace the mental.
    • • 
        Molzahn
        June 23, 2007
        Edit | Reply
        it is purely empowering, the question is, to what end? and to what satisfaction. empowerment is a comfort zone we are sure to lose in time.
      • • 
          TeChNoWC
          June 23, 2007
          Edit | Reply
          All will be lost - yet this won't be apparent if you choose to believe otherwise.
        • • 
            Molzahn
            July 10, 2007
            Edit | Reply

            tempting, but...

            As I find, the price of comfort is usually compassion and understanding
          • • 
              TeChNoWC
              July 10, 2007
              Edit | Reply
              The price of so called 'non-comfort' is dread.
              
              You do not lose compassion and understanding simply due to a belief system.
            • • 
                Molzahn
                August 30, 2007
                Edit | Reply
                dread is the product of the perception of impotence within one's self; if we identify ourself as having control and power, we are sure to be corrupted. a belief system does not cause a loss of compassion or understanding, but the assumption of responsibility to use one's will/power on another, takes for granted their veiws and values. the idea that 'we know better' is the that ultimate arrogance which is usually the spark to conflict
              • • 
                  TeChNoWC
                  August 31, 2007
                  Edit | Reply
                  Don't we all know better?
                • • 
                    Molzahn
                    September 6, 2007
                    Edit | Reply
                    confidence makes us bold
  • 
    pnktrky
    February 9, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    nothing is a mistake... because everything is a choice... its just that sometimes we dont like the consiquences and we would like to think it wasnt because of us... so we call it a mistake... something that should not have happened but yet it was our choice in the first place... simple economics... always remember that not making a choice is as much of a choice as making a choice.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: