Fear or Laziness

Metaphysical, spiritual, philosophical or mystical topics.
The forum for talks about the intangible universe, the human mind, and the soul.

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby ThePermster » Thu May 27, 2010 10:49 pm

Ryan wrote:So, you are saying that in essence if anyone actually considers anything they have to come to a "proper resolution" in which case they would have to conclude there is nothing to be afraid of or that that will certainly succeed?


Yes I think that's accurate to what I'm trying to communicate, if they do not reach the proper resolution then they would not have properly considered. That is to say that that would imply they stopped before the consideration was duly complete and that would appear as laziness too, no?

Ryan wrote:So there is no chance that as a result of someone's consideration they can resolve that failure is inevitable?... be it factual or delusional?


In these cases this is where I'd reason with the introspective properties of consideration.
What I mean by that is I think if fear were inevitable, then realisation of this and introspective practice as part of the consideration process would make the anxiety felt negligible and/or controlled and thus not stop the resolution from continuing forwards and thus change would not be hindered.

Ryan wrote:So, if I have ever considered action and reaction then couldn't I systematically assume to apply the result of the initial consideration to every following action without having to re-consider the same thing for every action that follows? And if I deducted that I fail more times than I succeed couldn't my overall approach be logically assumed that failure is more probable than success? In which case... I could develop a phobia... or fear which would inhibit me from putting forth any initial effort because my conclusions are that I will fail... therefore the attempt is never made.


I'm not sure I follow why you would carry forward the previous results? Certainly if you use such results as a bias in the consideration then you're not properly considering. And certainly if you inhibit your future attempts based on probabilities formed from previous failures then you've fallen victim to the gambler's fallacy.
User avatar
ThePermster
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 2:59 pm
Personality: Ambivert
State of Mind or Tendency: Neutral
Kudos: 1

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby Ryan » Fri May 28, 2010 6:28 am

ThePermster wrote:That is to say that that would imply they stopped before the consideration was duly complete and that would appear as laziness too, no?
In my opinion, not necessarily... I see how it could be...

ThePermster wrote:I'm not sure I follow why you would carry forward the previous results?
I can carry forward previous results from certain deductions... for example... If I leave my hand in a flame for long enough I am going to get burned.... If I hold most things out at arm's length and let them go they will fall... if those things are in any way fragile the chances are high that object will break... if I drag any object that is somewhat sharp across my skin with a certain amount of pressure it will cut me... There are all kinds of previous conclusions that I can carry over to the next situation without having to walk through the whole process again and again... if this is possible to be carried over, couldn't repetitive actions within one's career or instances of confrontation between a sibling, family member, co-worker, or friend also be carried over as well...? Then couldn't such things be a matter of fear rather than laziness?
[R] If you don't understand something I said or why I said it... ask me.
If you don't want to understand something I said or why I said it... tell me.
User avatar
Ryan
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:54 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Personality: Ambivert
Favorite book: no favorite book but favorite stories
Favorite movie: the Star Wars saga
Things I like: My family, nature, movies, games, music... more later
State of Mind or Tendency: Inspired
Kudos: 50

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby dermot » Fri May 28, 2010 9:43 pm

The Permster Wrote.......This I think would imply that human history is an incessant flatline due to a lack of consideration and examination of the situation in the first place. This is laziness. Or, more accurately, willing ignorance.


I readily admit to feeling confused.

I have endeavoured to read the topic from start to finish and understand the points made.

The Permster's quote at the top of this piece seems to suggest that man is incapable of anything other than repeated forms of ignorant behaviour.
That there is ignorance and laziness all around us is of course undeniable. To suggest that this is unchanging or unchallenged seems to me to be untrue.
If as i do, you consider life to be a journey of self discovery and evoloution then a flatline existence of mediocrity would be a death.

The Permster wrote,
Fear does not factor into the mediocrity of human history by my reckoning. Why? Because people don't get far enough to pose the questions required to be aware of any cause for fear.


The above statement takes the proverbial biscuit in terms of empathy with the human condition!

People strive daily, hourly, to counteract events that have overtaken their desire to experience happiness for themselves and their loved ones.

Lets take a person with an addiction problem....they strive to learn how to defeat an addictive nature.
Your statement would suggest they dont engage fear at any level, that they dont challenge fear. Surely your thinking suggests they dont feel anything.
So, why would they stop, or die trying?

Permster i may have misread, misunderstood, or simply may not understand the language you use, if so please forgive me if i have taken you up wrongly.

As for fear i engage it in battle regularly .......it makes me a better person to do this.
d.
....the heart only whispers, be still and listen....
User avatar
dermot
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:07 pm
Location: ireland
Personality: Introvert
State of Mind or Tendency: Inspired
Kudos: 52

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby ThePermster » Sat May 29, 2010 3:31 pm

Ryan wrote:In my opinion, not necessarily... I see how it could be...


What exceptions do you see for the case?

This posit is a very recent attempt of mine to apply reason to what is essentially conjecture in the passage by Louis Mackey at the head of this thread; so I'd really love for it to be challenged to the full before I decide whether to adopt it as a creed or not.

Ryan wrote:I can carry forward previous results from certain deductions... for example... If I leave my hand in a flame for long enough I am going to get burned.... If I hold most things out at arm's length and let them go they will fall... if those things are in any way fragile the chances are high that object will break... if I drag any object that is somewhat sharp across my skin with a certain amount of pressure it will cut me... There are all kinds of previous conclusions that I can carry over to the next situation without having to walk through the whole process again and again... if this is possible to be carried over, couldn't repetitive actions within one's career or instances of confrontation between a sibling, family member, co-worker, or friend also be carried over as well...? Then couldn't such things be a matter of fear rather than laziness?


Experience is but a tool to the consideration process. Always experience should not dictate our actions but should guide them. For instance it is indeed reasonable to assume not to touch flames from previous experience but supposing that there was something valuable within the fire and you had it on good faith that for whatever reason this time the fire wouldn't damage you, this new situation could potentially override the old information given new input so I think experience is more or less inconsequential to my point because the process of considering is always going to be situational. The only reason your hand might hesitate before entering the flames is because of human nature and not because of conscious process.
I think my reasoning would see that any action as dictated by experience and not just guided by it; as not properly considered.

dermot wrote:The Permster's quote at the top of this piece seems to suggest that man is incapable of anything other than repeated forms of ignorant behaviour.


No, I would say that man in his natural form is incapable of anything other than repeated forms of ignorant behaviour because man is inherently not far from the chimpanzees. In terms of wisdom not just physiologically.
But it is my thought that it is a capability of man to rise above this and become something more than just an evolutionary relative of apes. It's at this point, that man is capable of so much more, and it is at this point, that every "great" man or woman who has ever lived resides.

It's important to note that sentience is a prerequisite of the latter stage, and it is also important to note I feel, that the simply ability to verbally say "I am alive" is not inherently a proof of sentience.

dermot wrote:That there is ignorance and laziness all around us is of course undeniable. To suggest that this is unchanging or unchallenged seems to me to be untrue.


This I think is very...I'm not sure of the word, maybe something like transiencentric; what I mean though is I think very biased according to a limited perspective of time.

Consider this, I'm a denizen of the UK and I dunno if you're the same or if your cultural situation is similar (I dare say it is) or if you know much about UK life but it's fairly standard "these days" for someone of prominent enough looks to suffer the brunt of human instinct and become a victim of public violence and unsolicited brutality. Consequently you hear a lot of: "oh social youth these days is so very terrible" or something to that effect, but when really were things ever different? Granted 1950s media would have you think differently but when in reality has it ever been safe to be vulnerable and strange looking and to be out on public UK streets? The phrase "these days" seems only to reflect this "transiencentrism" of which I speak and show us just how formulaic and unchanging human history is.
Granted human history looks different enough in certain areas to grant us the term "eras" and the like but I would then go on to say that it would be somewhat anthropocentric to consider those differences significant. This is the never-ending sequence of zeroes of which Mackey refers.

dermot wrote:If as i do, you consider life to be a journey of self discovery and evoloution then a flatline existence of mediocrity would be a death.


A similar idea to the classic "the examined life is not worth living". What Mackey said and what I am concurring with is the idea that almost everyone born on this planet in fact does not lead an examined life.

dermot wrote:The above statement takes the proverbial biscuit in terms of empathy with the human condition!

People strive daily, hourly, to counteract events that have overtaken their desire to experience happiness for themselves and their loved ones.

Lets take a person with an addiction problem....they strive to learn how to defeat an addictive nature.
Your statement would suggest they dont engage fear at any level, that they dont challenge fear. Surely your thinking suggests they dont feel anything.
So, why would they stop, or die trying?


I think you may have misunderstood me by this point as I'm not trying to suggest a lot of what you've said but if my reasoning were hypothetically to be true wouldn't these struggles and this striving of which you speak be simply termed so because of the intrinsic bias of the person within that position?

dermot wrote:As for fear i engage it in battle regularly .......it makes me a better person to do this.
d.


By my own philosophies I would simply ask: do you really?
It's not meant as a leading question and it's essentially for you to answer the question to yourself but to reiterate my earlier point: "the simply ability to verbally say "I am alive" is not inherently a proof of sentience".
User avatar
ThePermster
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 2:59 pm
Personality: Ambivert
State of Mind or Tendency: Neutral
Kudos: 1

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby dermot » Sat May 29, 2010 4:27 pm

Thank you for your replies Permster, but you and I will never have a meeting of minds !

We are at odds on very fundamental issues!

I choose not to be led in this discussion, and would merely ask that you consider opening up to new ideas as they arise on this and other topics.

That is probably the most assured measure of any intellect - the ability to discover a new thought, consider its humble origin and expand it into consciousness.

regards
d.
....the heart only whispers, be still and listen....
User avatar
dermot
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:07 pm
Location: ireland
Personality: Introvert
State of Mind or Tendency: Inspired
Kudos: 52

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby Ryan » Sat May 29, 2010 5:53 pm

I do not have "faith" in anything and it has been my experience that anything that requires my "faith" in it is not worth my consideration... I believe in certain things based upon fact, feeling, and experience. Which is not to say I can prove to everyone what I have experienced or felt... but it is not a matter of faith simply because I have experienced something someone else has not.

I believe through personal development all things are possible... and the only reason I do not know, or have not experienced, something is because I have not developed to the point to which the answer or reason can be witnessed or understood... and therefore a faith in it is pointless and has no benefit.

So, to provide me with a response that is dependent upon "faith" of some "whatever reason" leaves me a bit at a loss...

As to my "exceptions"... I gave you several, although you only chose to attempt to discredit the fire/burning one, there are many more... however... my continued exploration of this topic is providing me with a more definite understanding that you are saying there is no such thing as fear...

While I can agree to a point in that I believe we can all live without fear and that most "phobias" are based upon a lack of understanding or ignorance. However, as Heidi pointed out a while back, there is a difference between a fear and a phobia. BUT! Fear does exist... is it necessary? I don't know. Can it be dispelled...? Certainly... but is it done through consideration... most of the time, does it mean that a person without fear has considered everything and therefore came to "proper conclusions"? Most definitely not... they can fool themselves to believe in something that is totally preposterous in order to provide themselves with comfort and through that dispelling certain fears... Are they any the wiser or more ignorant? Also, a person can be fearless in regards to somethings out of ignorance simply because they have not had an experience. Such as a baby with fire. The first time a baby sees fire it is not fearful of it. It is possible it is fascinated by it. Until experience teaches it differently and there are a number of possible reactions. Fear being one of them...

Fear is not necessarily bad... Fear, as with anything else, has both positive and negative traits, along with a variety of neutral traits, but to argue its existence seems a little misplaced to me, and I am trying to understand the reasoning, but it is not coming across very well.

I have heard people argue the existence of time, HIV/AIDS, and cancer. It is always fascinating to me to hear. Arguing as to whether or not it is necessary by saying it doesn't exist seems a bit like when religious fanatics explain the existence of God... and so... my thoughts are always directed to... why is it important to get confirmation that it does or doesn't exist... most of the time it has been my experience that the reason is because they are afraid of something... God exists because they are afraid of living a life that has no purpose or they are afraid that when they die they will cease to exist. Cancer and HIV/AIDS don't exist because they are afraid of having an agonizing death. Time does not exist because theirs is running out... but then... if there is no fear then they can't be afraid... they just haven't drawn the proper conclusions...?
[R] If you don't understand something I said or why I said it... ask me.
If you don't want to understand something I said or why I said it... tell me.
User avatar
Ryan
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:54 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Personality: Ambivert
Favorite book: no favorite book but favorite stories
Favorite movie: the Star Wars saga
Things I like: My family, nature, movies, games, music... more later
State of Mind or Tendency: Inspired
Kudos: 50

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby ThePermster » Sun May 30, 2010 4:09 pm

dermot wrote:Thank you for your replies Permster, but you and I will never have a meeting of minds !

We are at odds on very fundamental issues!


Surely in the case of such diametrical differences it could only be beneficial to us both to share minds?

dermot wrote:I choose not to be led in this discussion, and would merely ask that you consider opening up to new ideas as they arise on this and other topics.


Forgive me but I'm not sure I follow, I'm not sure how my discussion is leading in any way and I'm not sure why a close-minded implication is called for?
I have offered a new idea in line with the thought presented at the beginning of the thread by Louis Mackey for open critique, of which it is receiving. There's little being reciprocated other than critique at the moment so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be receptive of here?

Ryan wrote:So, to provide me with a response that is dependent upon "faith" of some "whatever reason" leaves me a bit at a loss...


You appear to have picked up on my word choice instead of the context I provided. The only time I used the phrases that you've quoted was within the proposal of a hypothetic, so was intentionally conjectural.

Ryan wrote:As to my "exceptions"... I gave you several, although you only chose to attempt to discredit the fire/burning one, there are many more... however...


Your other examples were also based on factors of experience so should my discrediting of your first example have been valid then your other points will have been moot too.

Ryan wrote:my continued exploration of this topic is providing me with a more definite understanding that you are saying there is no such thing as fear...


No this isn't true, I am instead saying that fear is a superficial or unimportant thing.
I guess this is kind of in line with how I personally downplay the significance of physical emotion which to me is mostly superficial, I see these things as very naturalistic, instead I aim to express the importance of more mental emotions. Honour, loyalty, harmony, love, etc.
Without going too far into what is essentially a tangent, I also believe in kind of "higher" counterparts to most "typical" emotions. Whilst happiness and sadness can be described in terms of very naturalistic processes I believe it becomes more purer and less naturalistic when say someone is moved by empathy or a piece of artistic expression and feels happiness.
The kind of fear I'm talking about here would be of the "lower" variety.

Ryan wrote:While I can agree to a point in that I believe we can all live without fear and that most "phobias" are based upon a lack of understanding or ignorance. However, as Heidi pointed out a while back, there is a difference between a fear and a phobia. BUT! Fear does exist... is it necessary? I don't know. Can it be dispelled...? Certainly... but is it done through consideration... most of the time, does it mean that a person without fear has considered everything and therefore came to "proper conclusions"? Most definitely not... they can fool themselves to believe in something that is totally preposterous in order to provide themselves with comfort and through that dispelling certain fears... Are they any the wiser or more ignorant? Also, a person can be fearless in regards to somethings out of ignorance simply because they have not had an experience. Such as a baby with fire. The first time a baby sees fire it is not fearful of it. It is possible it is fascinated by it. Until experience teaches it differently and there are a number of possible reactions. Fear being one of them...


I think we've kinda moved away from the original point here as my posit wasn't considering much of the nature of resolution of fear. I was instead saying that it's far more likely for laziness to be the contributing factor in willing ignorance because fear would be somewhat self-defeating in this instance.
User avatar
ThePermster
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 2:59 pm
Personality: Ambivert
State of Mind or Tendency: Neutral
Kudos: 1

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby Ryan » Sun May 30, 2010 5:33 pm

ThePermster wrote:You appear to have picked up on my word choice instead of the context I provided. The only time I used the phrases that you've quoted was within the proposal of a hypothetic, so was intentionally conjectural.
Your word choice made the hypothesis illogical... because for me if something has been proven again and again to be a matter of universal law and for "whatever reason" someone is telling me that in this particular case things will be different, just doesn't make sense and therefore it is not worth my time to consider or re-consider... Instead I would tell that person to show me and I would sit back and watch them get burned... That would also be the reason why I do not follow how your discrediting my first example has been valid and thus proving my other points as being moot too.

As to your claim that fear is superficial or unimportant... would this extend into the child's fear of fire? Or the dog that is rushing toward you foaming at the mouth while you are in an open field...? Doesn't fear increase heart rate and adrenaline flow into the body which provides you with a certain amount of strength and faster reflexes that can help save your life in some situations? Such things are superficial and unimportant? If I understood you correctly, it's pretty much like the appendix, yes?

Off Topic Interest
As for the whole "Physical Emotions" vs "Mental Emotions" I have no idea what you are talking about... I ran some searches and didn't find anything worth repeating so maybe you could help clarify...? Could you provide me with a list of each and why some are considered "Physical" and the others "Mental"? It sounds interesting, I just I don't grab the concept and did not understand what explanations I have found.
[R] If you don't understand something I said or why I said it... ask me.
If you don't want to understand something I said or why I said it... tell me.
User avatar
Ryan
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:54 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Personality: Ambivert
Favorite book: no favorite book but favorite stories
Favorite movie: the Star Wars saga
Things I like: My family, nature, movies, games, music... more later
State of Mind or Tendency: Inspired
Kudos: 50

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby dermot » Sun May 30, 2010 6:10 pm

The Permster Wrote,
No this isn't true, I am instead saying that fear is a superficial or unimportant thing.
I guess this is kind of in line with how I personally downplay the significance of physical emotion which to me is mostly superficial
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The above comment from Permster maintaining that fear is superficial and unimportant seeks to eliminate the effects of fear on any given soul.
The child growing up in unfortunate circumstances, the rape victim, the traumatised soldier, the starved, the list is pretty much endless. To dismiss the effects of mental and physical trauma in a one line sentence seems to me at least to display a lack of empathy.

Personally downplaying the significance of physical emotion may be your choice, ignoring the part fear plays in lives touched by anything from sadness to abject despair is to not see its significance.

I ask you to reconsider your post.
d.
....the heart only whispers, be still and listen....
User avatar
dermot
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:07 pm
Location: ireland
Personality: Introvert
State of Mind or Tendency: Inspired
Kudos: 52

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby ThePermster » Mon May 31, 2010 6:47 pm

Ryan wrote:Your word choice made the hypothesis illogical... because for me if something has been proven again and again to be a matter of universal law and for "whatever reason" someone is telling me that in this particular case things will be different, just doesn't make sense and therefore it is not worth my time to consider or re-consider... Instead I would tell that person to show me and I would sit back and watch them get burned... That would also be the reason why I do not follow how your discrediting my first example has been valid and thus proving my other points as being moot too.


Ok then consider the matter of faith to be refined as some scientific proof then. The more important point though was that experience should only ever be a guide to action. Were it to become any other way then the individual would have become mindlessly conditioned and have ceased to properly consider.

Ryan wrote:As to your claim that fear is superficial or unimportant... would this extend into the child's fear of fire? Or the dog that is rushing toward you foaming at the mouth while you are in an open field...? Doesn't fear increase heart rate and adrenaline flow into the body which provides you with a certain amount of strength and faster reflexes that can help save your life in some situations? Such things are superficial and unimportant? If I understood you correctly, it's pretty much like the appendix, yes?


I'm talking in existential terms, yes granted fear is a reflex that intelligent life wouldn't have been able to flourish without but it's still just a naturalistic process. Yes it'd hurt like hell, I'd indeed be terrified and yes would scream a helluva lot if someone hacked my leg off with a saw but in the end it's just entirely physiological phenomenon and this makes it superficial in my eyes.
Only that which contributes to my existential purpose is important to me and I enjoy downplaying the naturalistic processes which are so latent within us from the process of evolution because they do not help with that purpose.

Off Topic Interest
Ryan wrote:As for the whole "Physical Emotions" vs "Mental Emotions" I have no idea what you are talking about... I ran some searches and didn't find anything worth repeating so maybe you could help clarify...? Could you provide me with a list of each and why some are considered "Physical" and the others "Mental"? It sounds interesting, I just I don't grab the concept and did not understand what explanations I have found.


I can't say I've heard of any thought similar to this within any particular school of philosophy, just the occasional allusion in some spectra of ethics. My sociologically educated friends tell me that there may be something to say of it within that science though; though I wouldn't know where to point you I'm afraid, so there's only my meagre thoughts on the subject.

The basic principle however is to consider naturalism and...ummm...I'm not sure there's a word, I'll use "mentalism" though I know that's incorrect; the principle is to consider the two as a dichotomy.
The first - naturalism - is a proponent of ideas like determinism and would have us all reduced to biological computers, the second - for which I use the term mentalism here - is kind of the opposite, it proposes ideas such as free-will, God, love and other similar things which evade us empirically.
Under this principle only the latter has any existential significance whereas any meaning or beauty found in the former would be entirely arbitrary.

There's a lot to say on the subject though, perhaps I should create a separate thread for it if you'd like to talk on it more?



dermot wrote:The above comment from Permster maintaining that fear is superficial and unimportant seeks to eliminate the effects of fear on any given soul.
The child growing up in unfortunate circumstances, the rape victim, the traumatised soldier, the starved, the list is pretty much endless. To dismiss the effects of mental and physical trauma in a one line sentence seems to me at least to display a lack of empathy.

Personally downplaying the significance of physical emotion may be your choice, ignoring the part fear plays in lives touched by anything from sadness to abject despair is to not see its significance.


This would be largely addressed by my responses to Ryan but if you don't mind me picking out a few things to note in particular:

dermot wrote:The above comment from Permster maintaining that fear is superficial and unimportant seeks to eliminate the effects of fear on any given soul.


I would indeed seek to do this but I would argue that this is in fact a good thing as it would have a therapeutic nature.
In the examples of suffering that you then go on to describe I would suggest a therapy of explicit realism. For instance: were a rape victim to have an absolute holistic understanding of the rapist's reasons (not just his reasoning but also the formative processes that led to it), a purely passive view of the act of rape (I should point out that that's of the actual act itself and not of the ethics inherit to it) and also a firm grasp on how it has affected them and what it should mean to them; this could only help to disarm the fear and thus be a counselling process. In fact it's this kind of thinking which most CBT techniques for trauma sufferers seeks to emulate.

If you see fear for what it is, a physiological reaction, then that can only help the introspective process. I think that may be a tad off-topic though.
User avatar
ThePermster
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 2:59 pm
Personality: Ambivert
State of Mind or Tendency: Neutral
Kudos: 1

PreviousNext

Return to Spirited Debate

Who is online

Registered users: No registered users

cron
StumbleUpon Digg Delicious Reddit Yahoo Google Live Facebook Twitter MySpace