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 Ryan » Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:39 am

Well, I guess that's where we are not mixing very well... for me the thought process, consideration, evaluation... what have you... is just a process to build a theory or to hypothesize about some thing... but the proof comes in the action... which results in the creation of an experience... that experience can of course then be used in further evaluations but I do not find that it is anyway limited to that... After all, in any scientific study the deriving of a theory/hypothesis is the minor concern (an important one though). It is the action and repetition of achieving the same result that makes the experiment a success or failure.

As for fears, very few people have ever dispelled a fear simply by thinking about it... or researching it... much to the contrary. It is most probable that a person with a certain fear will have read a certain amount of material... possibly even went to a form of therapy. But eventually it all will end when the person faces that fear and does that of which they are afraid... because the proof is in the action... not the theory. However, it is not to say that the person is lazy and that is why they haven't faced the fear... but more to the point that the desire is there to overcome it yet the fear itself, as a method of self-preservation, prevents them from acting upon the desire.

Sorry, I do not follow the other paragraph at all... as far as my understanding of ...
Dictionary.com wrote:ex·is·ten·tial–adjective
    1. pertaining to existence.
    2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of existentialism
      ex·is·ten·tial·ism–noun Philosophy .
        a philosophical attitude associated esp. with Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and opposed to rationalism and empiricism, that stresses the individual's unique position as a self-determining agent responsible for the authenticity of his or her choices.
With which you state that you agree that without fear intelligent life wouldn't have been able to flourish... how does it prove to be superficial... be it naturalistic or not, and not be crucial in the existence of our species or to an individual's unique position as a self-determining agent?

Maybe the problem lies more in that we, as a species, have very little to fear at this point in our existence and therefore you feel that it is no longer needed? Kind of like a bird that has no natural predators ceases to need the ability to fly? And then becomes extinct because someone brings a predator that is not naturally from there...?

Also, I can't understand how you can "downplay" any physiological or naturalistic (meaning having to do with nature) processes as they play a very important role in the development of consciousness, the mental and spiritual abilities of the individual, as well as the collective.
[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 mirjana » Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:46 pm

Ryan wrote:...

As for fears, very few people have ever dispelled a fear simply by thinking about it... or researching it... much to the contrary. It is most probable that a person with a certain fear will have read a certain amount of material... possibly even went to a form of therapy. But eventually it all will end when the person faces that fear and does that of which they are afraid... because the proof is in the action... not the theory. However, it is not to say that the person is lazy and that is why they haven't faced the fear... but more to the point that the desire is there to overcome it yet the fear itself, as a method of self-preservation, prevents them from acting upon the desire.
...


Good thoughts Ryan.
I also think that active approach toward fears change the energy and enable the person to work the whole chain of circumstances that caused a fear.
You are right that it is not that the person is lazy. This is a psychological phenomenon called unconscious energetic sabotage. This is also known as antagonistic motivation. This terminology comes from Dr Roger J. Callahan, PhD, founder and developer of T.F.T, also known as The Callahan Techniques. Dr Callahan considers TFT to be a "revolutionary experiment in psychology" since its high success rate cannot be explained or predicted using conventional theories of psychotherapy.
Based on his and some other researches in energy meridians therapies, M.Z. Slavinski has developed PEAT, which is also a very powerful technique for solving fear issues. The breakthrough in comparison to other meridian therapies is this Formula for antagonistic motivation (FAM), because all people who have hard psychological problems, fears or phobias, are motivated antagonistically, which means that they are sabotaging themselves. With FAM and by accepting themselves as they are (including the problem), they neutralize their unconscious self sabotage opening the active process of healing.
User avatar
mirjana
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:09 pm
State of Mind or Tendency: Inspired
Kudos: 48

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby ThePermster » Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:00 pm

Ryan wrote:Well, I guess that's where we are not mixing very well... for me the thought process, consideration, evaluation... what have you... is just a process to build a theory or to hypothesize about some thing... but the proof comes in the action... which results in the creation of an experience... that experience can of course then be used in further evaluations but I do not find that it is anyway limited to that... After all, in any scientific study the deriving of a theory/hypothesis is the minor concern (an important one though). It is the action and repetition of achieving the same result that makes the experiment a success or failure.


That's tantamount to justifying the journey solely on the destination. Tolkein fans would disapprove. =]
And this implies that within my hypothetic, you would rather discard all new information and let the valuable object burn based on previous experience. That statement just then is somewhat reductio ad absurdum to me but if that's the conclusion you choose to make then very well; I respect your choice.

Ryan wrote:As for fears, very few people have ever dispelled a fear simply by thinking about it... or researching it... much to the contrary.


This would only be confirmation were my thought to be true. Anecdotal evidence is easily perspective skewed like that. My posit would say that it's only anthropocentrism that makes us so inclined to pick the traditional view.

Ryan wrote:It is most probable that a person with a certain fear will have read a certain amount of material... possibly even went to a form of therapy. But eventually it all will end when the person faces that fear and does that of which they are afraid... because the proof is in the action... not the theory. However, it is not to say that the person is lazy and that is why they haven't faced the fear... but more to the point that the desire is there to overcome it yet the fear itself, as a method of self-preservation, prevents them from acting upon the desire.


For this section to not be swayed like the former you would be reliant on the same observed behaviour applying to people who - by my thought - should be free of their naturalistic processes. But of course in many cases it isn't. Certainly all people I have met in my life who I have come to think of as free in the sense that I promote have succeeded many times in "thinking themselves out of situations".
I'm almost surprised you object though, isn't this one of the very pillars upon which we think of us humans as having such a mighty place on this planet, surely you would support my view in light of that?

Ryan wrote:Sorry, I do not follow the other paragraph at all... as far as my understanding of ...
Dictionary.com wrote:ex·is·ten·tial–adjective
    1. pertaining to existence.
    2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of existentialism
      ex·is·ten·tial·ism–noun Philosophy .
        a philosophical attitude associated esp. with Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and opposed to rationalism and empiricism, that stresses the individual's unique position as a self-determining agent responsible for the authenticity of his or her choices.


Mostly in line with the last definition it is to think in terms of the pursuit of meaning, whether it be arbitrary or not. As of coming from the philosophical world I tend to think and assume in terms of philosophical concepts, sorry if that is a hindrance to the language I use.

Ryan wrote:With which you state that you agree that without fear intelligent life wouldn't have been able to flourish... how does it prove to be superficial... be it naturalistic or not, and not be crucial in the existence of our species or to an individual's unique position as a self-determining agent?

Maybe the problem lies more in that we, as a species, have very little to fear at this point in our existence and therefore you feel that it is no longer needed? Kind of like a bird that has no natural predators ceases to need the ability to fly? And then becomes extinct because someone brings a predator that is not naturally from there...?

Also, I can't understand how you can "downplay" any physiological or naturalistic (meaning having to do with nature) processes as they play a very important role in the development of consciousness, the mental and spiritual abilities of the individual, as well as the collective.


Yes a point is that now many naturalistic processes are redundant in civilisation, though I don't think fear is entirely so, if you'd like a good example of one that is though then consider the reflex of jealousy, what exactly does that serve? And also granted yes they played a part in getting us here but the evolutionary paradigm can only continue in naturalistic terms as long as they exist within the process.

But actually the bigger and more important point in why naturalistic processes are superficial is that any meaning found in naturalistic processes is inherently arbitrary because naturalism is intrinsically a proponent of existential nihilism.
And this is actually a key point of why I adopt this idea of naturalism vs mentalism (is anybody aware of a more appropriate word than that?): on the one hand naturalists would have us only be a culmination of empiricism and nothing more (e.g. militant atheism), in this stance meaning is arbitrary and I choose not to take this stance as a philosophical form of Pascal's wager, a naturalist's world has no meaning inherit so I have nothing to lose by not living my life according to the naturalists. On the other hand, the purist mentalists would have us all be smoke and mirrors (e.g. fanatic theism) and of course this isn't true or else empiricism wouldn't apply but nevertheless this idea is necessary for non-naturalistic ideas of which a brilliant example is love.

So in response to this I adopt a dichotomy of both. Both are as necessary as each other, but non-arbitrary meaning is only present in the latter and this makes the former - naturalism - superficial and of meaning. That doesn't mean it's not of value, it just has no intrinsic existential purpose. Though perhaps you could argue that it makes existential purpose possible, but this does not make any delineating scale of meaningfulness suddenly inherit to it.
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 Heidi » Fri Jun 04, 2010 12:35 am

To ThePermster:

It's the second night I've been reading this thread, but I can neither understand your point of view nor reach a conclusion that has to do with the way you view fear.

While I can perfectly understand Ryan's writing and ideas, the fact that English is not my mother tongue and the fact that you use rather difficult terms, prevent me from understanding your writings. I know that not everybody has the ability to understand complex concepts, but the success of the scholar, just like the success of a teacher, is to make everybody understand.

To give you an example. You write: “But actually the bigger and more important point in why naturalistic processes are superficial is that any meaning found in naturalistic processes is inherently arbitrary because naturalism is intrinsically a proponent of existential nihilism.”
In these two lines, there is not a single word that is unknown to me, but the meaning escapes my understanding.

I would be grateful if you could summarize your views on fear in layman's terms for all of us on this forum to understand.
User avatar
Heidi
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:18 am
Location: Athens, Greece
State of Mind or Tendency: Cool
Kudos: 17

Re: Fear or Laziness

Postby ThePermster » Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:25 pm

I'm sorry you find my posts difficult to comprehend Heidi. If I might be so bold as to defend myself, one of the main reasons why I partake in internet discussion is to practice my dialectical ability, I habitually regular philosophical circles in real life so it's practically a necessity for me to do so.

I'll try and summarise those of my views which are relevant within this topic:

Most importantly, and my entire reason for taking an interest in this topic, is the wonderful quote from the late Louis Mackey provided at the head of the thread. I entirely agree with the words said within it.

The most important points made by it are:
1) Human beings are not by definition sapient. To be sapient is to possess a keen sense of wisdom and insight. An important point within a point here is to note how opposite to the average man's thought on the subject this idea is, I mean hell just look at what we've called ourselves, "Homo Sapien" which if I remember rightly literally means "man who is wise". But nonetheless the evidence for the common thought is usually incredibly biased from the human perspective - what you call anthropocentrism - whilst the evidence for Mackey's idea here is extremely compelling and far more plausible. I can detail this evidence for you if you'd like, I think I've only alluded to it thus far but nobody's asked.

2) Human beings, whilst not sapient by definition are nonetheless capable of sapience. This is wherein comes my thoughts on the naturalism vs supernaturalism (I found the right word =] ) dichotomy, I'll explain that in a bit.

3) Human beings must consciously acquire sapience. This is implied by Mackey's final point on fear vs laziness but logically it comes before that point. What it's saying is that a person cannot acquire sapience accidentally, they must instead seek to acquire it with all factors of their mental being.
There's an important idea that I always follow this point by to show that this is often the part where people start to wrongly (I feel) assume we're all sapient beings. And that is that being able to verbally say "I am alive" does not prove your own sentience. Now that's actually quite a complex idea despite the simplicity of the statement, so pardon me if I explain it poorly but I'll try. The idea is that sentience (the property of being self-aware) is first necessary before sapience and there is much anthropological psychology in the subject of seeing if chimps can recognise themselves in mirrors, which they can, but some philosophical anthropologists would say that being able to recognise the self isn't enough to show that you are "self-aware", you must also understand the nature of the self. I've heard people reason with some success that this is the reason why it appears only we humans are capable of sapience.

4) Finally, Mackey ends by showing us the history of man and showing how - human biases aside - humanity really hasn't changed in the past few thousand years of civilisation and has made little, if any progress. He is of course talking in terms of wisdom versus intelligence, wisdom being the important one because it is the only one of the two which brings us meaning; and personal and collective harmony (it's also important to note that the two are not correlated in any way either as many people seem to think this).
Mackey then seeks to explain this history of unchangeingness by proposing that it is not fear which stops man from progressing, as is commonly thought, and which often leads people to believe that because fear is continually fought then we must be moving forward, because the human time-line shows us that this can't be true. But instead he proposes it is in fact laziness, a cognitive laziness that inadvertently stops us from understanding and acquiring the most important thing any of us could hope to achieve, sapience.


The reasoning that I proposed towards the beginning of this topic sought to make Mackey's statements far less based on conjecture and far more based on logic; ultimately to make the statement's far more stable, far less biased and thus far more important. As we can see in Mackey's excerpt he presents us with some ideas on human sapience which whilst mostly assumed to be true within the philosophical community are nonetheless only based on social observation and thus only conjecture.

My reasoning posed that it would be implausible to assume the most dominant cause for the lack of human progress is fear, because fear comes about as part of what I called "the consideration process". This is the natural cognitive process of examination and evaluation that we all perform when we are faced with a decision. But were this process to be properly performed then there would be various effects in place that would result in the proper management and evaluation of the fear experienced as it is then part of the situation that is being considered. This means fear should not be likely to hinder human progress and by extension means that it is unlikely that people even take part in this consideration process, if this weren't true then we would have experienced the progress of human wisdom throughout human history, but we haven't, so we are left to assume that regardless or not of what people say, people do not properly consider and this can only be called laziness.

What has come about from this discussion is the nature of fear and it's importance and relevance to the sapient being. Others are stressing that it is important, I however disagree, this is wherein comes my naturalism vs supernaturalism dichotomy.
Put extremely briefly as I've already described these ideas: naturalism is the idea that we are all a product of physical phenomena and supernaturalism is the opposite.
The former idea does not suffice for a way to view the human experience because it does not allow for indefinite things like "God", "love" and "meaning/purpose", instead; whenever those things are said to be experienced in a naturalistic world they instead only exist purely because they have been said to. This makes them arbitrary, not necessarily a bad thing but most people don't desire for this. Now that doesn't invalidate this idea in any way, in fact to many this idea is extremely plausible, but I choose to think otherwise as a form of Pascal's wager, or in other words; I choose to act as though meaning is not arbitrary because were it to be then my meaning would be arbitrarily defined as my pursuit of non-arbitrary meaning so I have nothing to lose. Wordy I know but think it through.
The latter idea, supernaturalism, also does not suffice, quite simply because it would invalidate empiricism and that's not possible. But this idea does allow for all the indefinite God-like things we traditional thinkers have come to love.
So I propose a dichotomy or a compatibilism of the two. That is, a world view wherein both processes are present and work in unison and in parallel to one another. But this also means that I have to consider most things as a two-layer set.
For instance a great example is love, we've all heard love termed as "butterflies in the stomach" and "the heart skipping a beat" but of course these are just mundane naturalistic things. Any doctor will tell you it's blood being redirected around to the genitals and such in expectation of intercourse, that's just sexual attraction and the moment you explain that to people they will turn their nose and say "well that's not love then". Love is something which traditionally defies naturalistic definition and has non-arbitrary, supernaturalistic meaning. So with my dichotomy love is when human companionship transcends to an indefinite state of being.
This is the crux of why fear is mundane to me, because it is a naturalistic thing, with no meaning inherit to it's being, and that should be all there is to it. Granted the feeling is physically compelling, but so is my impulse to copulate with every attractive female I see and equally my impulse to bash in the skulls of every other male who tries to do the same, but does that give them the quite high title of being non-arbitrarily meaningful? Ye Gods no.

I think that summarises my position here, if you want me to elaborate on anything then by all means ask.
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 » Fri Jun 04, 2010 8:55 pm

Dear Permster,

i suspected you might be using this discussion to practise your verbage, which you admit in the first paragraph of your last post.

I for one agree with Heidi, and remain unmoved either by your motives or your arguments, but then they are not arguments, just vehicles for amusement.

Maybe you would preface your posts with this information, so as to alert the other members of your intention?
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 » Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:39 pm

dermot wrote:Dear Permster,

i suspected you might be using this discussion to practise your verbage, which you admit in the first paragraph of your last post.

I for one agree with Heidi, and remain unmoved either by your motives or your arguments, but then they are not arguments, just vehicles for amusement.

Maybe you would preface your posts with this information, so as to alert the other members of your intention?
d.


I'm not sure what I have done to warrant such condescension. As far as I'm aware I'm only guilty of offering an alternative point of view and yet you're the very same person who accused me of close-mindedness?

Though perhaps you extended a simple phrase of mine too far and misunderstood my intention? I'll reiterate and highlight what I think you may have missed: "one of the main reasons why I partake in internet discussion is to practice my dialectical ability". Should you have missed that which I have emboldened then I can understand why you might see my presence as an affront to the nature of this community but as I've just pointed out surely you can see I in fact meant otherwise.
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 » Fri Jun 04, 2010 10:00 pm

I dont have anything more to say...other than simplicity is much under appreciated.

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."
— Anaïs Nin
....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 Jun 05, 2010 12:03 am

dermot wrote:I dont have anything more to say...other than simplicity is much under appreciated.

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."
— Anaïs Nin


Condescending as the result of simple misunderstanding and jumped conclusions without so much as an if you please; let alone the courtesy to apologise for having so quickly took the offensive without first clarifying.
No I'm sorry dermot but you've only attempted to make a mockery of a perfectively reasonable discussion for agendas that still go unexpressed so I think you do indeed have something more to say.
In a place that would seek to bring together opposing views you have only bought unnecessary hostility so I would ask you to mind your own hypocrisy and maintain the intellectual confidence for apology first before passing comment in future.
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 Jun 05, 2010 1:05 pm

Dear Permster,

i really dont have any necessity to engage you in negativity.

Firstly let me say that i dont have misunderstandings, jumped conclusions, unexpressed agendas (whats that about?), hostility, or indeed hyppcrisy in relation to anything written.

Neither do i need to make an apology in relation to condescention, or for lack of courtesy, or for not seeking clarification, or for attempted mockery.

You see whats happened here is that as i predicted we would not share common views, this was based solely on your reasoning around the topic of fear. I for one, did not feel you were open to other views - but merely expressing your own.

Maintaining the intellectual confidence for apology...as you say in the last line of your post, is something you cannot know about me, therefore best not to comment on.

Lastly a direction from you in relation to how or what i post in the future betrays an attitude of superiority not given by me to you.

Thank you, and lets move on.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Spirited Debate

Who is online

Registered users: No registered users

cron
StumbleUpon Digg Delicious Reddit Yahoo Google Live Facebook Twitter MySpace