Saturday 29 April 2017

Alive with Drive

What gives some people the drive to feel alive? This is what I’ve been wondering lately, so again I’ll put my thoughts out onto hard copy, making things more graspable, reviewable, and of ease for working through, more distinctly  (which in itself might be a decent entire topic, and of which I may have already written about for all I can remember!). So –back on topic- I cant help but wonder why more people aren’t more eager to participate and to be active in elements of life that are IMO genuine, fulfilling, and enjoyable.

So here’s some theorization. For a lot of people it’s likely at least partially due to the topic of another of my posts, being subconscious fears/ anxieties. But, I think that’s only a partially effecting factor, as I’d think a lot of people aren’t really held back by anxieties. And perhaps the causing factor for a lack of drive to feel alive, is not an additional present fear, but simply a lack of additional present motivation, which is perhaps gained or developed by some people and not others. So by this theory, the default psychology and instinctual mentality of people is a neutral, lack of motivation to initiate and implement significant accomplishments in life. As I’ve come to learn in most situations, it’s likely not so distinctly “black and white” as perhaps we typically want to think –as that would make things more simple and discernable- (which yet again could likely be a whole other topic).

To draw from another more generic theory, I’d think that humans are developing this drive to feel alive, as we develop our brains as a species. This would mean some people would feel the drive naturally a lot more significantly than others, based on genetics or sometimes even fluke. I theorize that, to add to this naturally born factor, of drive being developed long term by our species as a whole, there would also likely be the factor of short term development of drive, throughout any individual’s life. This short term factor would be affected by the specific situation any individual happens to be born into. This relates to the well-known controversy of nature vs nurture, of which I believe is yet again a shade of grey, being a bit of both. I think the drive to feel alive would be developed strongly in anyone’s life that is exposed to it in effectively influential ways with positive reinforcement. Which I believe is just another example of common subconscious manipulation by everyday interactions, creating partial mindsets and influenced perceptions. With the amazing complexity of psychology, and difficulty to understand -let alone explain- I should probably stop myself there, before getting too far off topic.

But whether the cause of a lack of drive in your life is from the circumstantial lack of positive influence to feel alive, or a lack of genetic instinctual motivation, the potential for that drive is still there, with the right influence. Perhaps, let this be that potential influence to seed the growth and development of the drive. Once you get those right moments of feeling genuinely and legitimately alive, you will then in turn feel the drive. Continue to feed that drive, and you will ultimately feel -ever so amazingly-

Alive with Drive.

Saturday 15 April 2017

Craft of Christ

What is so significant about Christ and the craft of his accomplishments? Considering the impact of Jesus on this world today, this seems like quite a relevant question. As I tend to do, I’ll attempt to gain some understanding through analysis, processing, and comprehension.

As far as we know, it is the only time in all of history of all existence that God is believed to have been present on Earth in human form. A potentially generalised commonly agreeable explanation of God might be: the over reigning and controlling force of the entire universe, influencing happenings and circumstances within nature as well as human life to allow life, existence, and purpose to begin and persist. Regarding this understanding of the potentially extreme significance of God, this one time situation where God was present as human should make it quite relevant to humans simply because it occurred. But beyond the significance of the rarity of its occurrence, potentially lies much more significance intended to be applied by that supreme over reigning force called God itself.
So what further importance did God intend with the presence of Jesus?

It’s of course quite commonly believed that Jesus lived to die and save us from our sins. Understanding exactly what that means can be the difficult part, as I feel like I don’t, but I’ll consider that aspect a separate sub-topic. Firstly, before Jesus died, he was alive and interacting with humanity for a fairly surmountable length of time (at least in relation to human life), and this seems likely to have yet another aspect of significance to the existence of Jesus. Throughout Jesus’ life on Earth, he taught, advised and imparted wisdom to all and anyone who would accept it. If the only importance of Jesus was dying for our sins, Jesus could have lived an inconspicuous and solemn life until the time for his death. Therefore is seems logically reasonable that his presence was additionally intended to instruct humans with certain knowledge of God.

To then know what knowledge God intended to impart on humans, you would then of course observe what records remain of the interactions of Jesus, hence, the Bible. From my experience of learning about Jesus, he would often give advice of what would be the preferable reaction to certain circumstances of problems that would present themselves to people he would interact with. He would often also explain potential examples of scenarios where a similar principle to a matter at hand could be applicable. As well as describing appropriate behaviour, he would often imply most effectively Gods recommended actions by leading as an example himself in any occurring scenario. Whichever the case of imparting Gods wisdom, Jesus would attempt to explain the reasoning and the principal behind the suggested behaviour. Logically, this would obviously make practical sense as the principle and reasoning behind actions in any problematic scenario, would allow the given advice to be applicable to a wide variety of similar scenarios. The general principle would be very adaptable to the vast variables possible within any given persons’ life.

This seems to me like an important aspect of Jesus’ teachings to understand. I get the impression that a large quantity of religions, and more broadly people, misinterpret what God intended to knowlify through Jesus. The common misunderstanding seems to occur by focusing on a specific scenario at hand, and assuming that only the specific reaction to the specific circumstances of the example is what is relevant. But, in my opinion, with understanding the principle, different reactions would be appropriate with even a very minimal difference in potentially discrete variables. This is why it seems more probable that anything God intended to teach through Jesus was not relevantly concerning the specific rule implemented in that scenario, but rather the reasoning behind the rule, as the reasoning can most often be applied to an exceptionally larger variety of potentially occurring circumstances.

To understand even more generally, and simply what message it seems Jesus was trying to relay, you can observe what all varying relative reasons, for acting the certain way or making certain decisions (implied by Jesus through his examples), had in common. It seems apparent that, what his examples had in common was to act towards others as you would prefer them to act towards you in their circumstances. This is the most accurate generalised summarisation that I can interpret, at least regarding interactions with others. I believe this basic same message was emphasised at some point by Jesus according to the scriptures, so coming to the same conclusion using logical analysis and interpretation should be a good sign.

But if this general message was all that was necessary, perhaps Jesus would have left us with only that simple message. The scenarios Christ encountered and explained throughout his life were therefore likely crafted examples of how to understand and apply this broadly general method of living and being. Aid, by explanation of application of method, in the understanding and use of the general rule, should be necessary to avoid misinterpretation, and allow a more accurate comprehension of the implied prospect.
I suspect God would only alleve such lessons to a relative degree of accuracy, with the rest up to us to choose to practice.

(April 5, 2015 (Easter))


Thursday 13 April 2017

God Guided Gift

Have you ever wondered if God can make you think something specific? I believe the point of God creating humans, is to give them free will to choose, decide, and think themselves. So regularly, I believe God wouldn’t force someone to think something in particular. But, I also believe God answers prayers and influences people’s lives when God deems applicable. So under the right circumstances, the typical regulations that God goes by, of not causing someone to think something, could be potentially overwritten, if it is the will or request of the person for God to cause them to think something. I believe God has done this for me many times, and quite possibly is right now.

Once I came to this realisation, of the potential for God influencing my thoughts, I was amazed and inspired. I’m almost surprised I hadn’t thought of this earlier, seeing as it seems almost obvious that this should be a possibility. But once I finally did discover it, while pondering one of the more significant and complicated questions I’ve come across regarding God and life (conveniently enough:), I tried it and I believe God truly influenced my thoughts, to help me understand and to figure out the situation at hand. With the feeling of understanding and resolve, came an additional overall feeling of contentment, satisfaction, and some sort of calming peace that I don’t remember feeling before. I believe that feeling is some form of acknowledgement or confirmation of the influence of God. I have felt it a few times since that time, including just now as I have been typing this out, after again, asking God to influence my thoughts before beginning to write this out and attempting to understand and document Gods influence itself in my life. I sense some sort of irony in that itself, which I happen to get the feeling is often Gods sort of signature or icon, when it comes to my own personal way of thinking and attemptive processing.

I believe God has given me a gift of understanding and comprehension. I believe God helps me to understand things using my personal, somewhat unique, method and process; the simple process of logical analysis, reasoning, and practical comprehension. It is a very general and broadly applicable type of thinking and prospect in general, considering it should be potentially useful in almost any scenario in life once applied. The use and fundamental aspects of logical understanding is potentially a topic in itself which could be understood using it itself, and -ironically enough!- I feel that is a decent example of its adaptability and usefulness.

Those times in life recently, when I have used this gift of God (from what I believe), for something more substantial, significant, or meaningful, I have felt what I believe is a comforting, calming, peaceful yet uplifting feeling of the presence or influence of God. The time I felt it most powerfully, I’d say was while attempting to understand my method of thinking itself, how it works, and how it differs from what is normal, then wondering and sort of grasping the potential that it is a gift from God. Since that moment, I have felt relevantly more ambitious, motivated, inspired, joyful and -whatever other words describe it, that I can’t think of right now, but are implied by this statement itself- generally in my life. 
Perhaps with an open perspective, a God guided gift is often discoverable. 


Saturday 8 April 2017

How my Mind is Mined

Understanding how my own mind works and how I use it can be a confusing concept. In order to understand it, before explaining it, as I’m attempting to do right now, I must use it in the way that I attempt to explain. Explaining it in that way as I just did, as well as this way that I am now, is perhaps an example of overlapping circuited attempted comprehension that occasionally goes through my mind. It seems to me that to understand how your own mind works can be potentially contradicting, but ultimately, potentially beneficial with the appropriate adjustments of methods of mind use. As I think has happened to me, one likely outcome to comprehending essentially your own comprehension itself, is you will realize the faults of your ways of thinking, causing you to no longer think that way. I’d guess this is likely to happen, because if you are rational, open-minded, and accepting enough to accurately understand your own methods of attemptive understanding, then you would also be rational etc. enough to correct the faults that you become aware of.

Anyway, I believe, as a result of my attemptive understanding of my own mind, that my mind has some unique aspects to its functioning. I believe these unique aspects are what led me to even attempt to understand my own minds functioning in the first place, and what led me to ever -so oddly- come up with typing this attempted explanation. I figure my mind is at least somewhat unique in its drasticness of its questioning, wondering, theorising, and ability to understand causal reasoning, using logical and practical analysis and probability, based on what variables are present and known. This differential of the functioning of my mind seems fairly convenient and beneficial to me as this method of thinking is so broadly adaptable that it should theoretically be potentially applicable to -vaguely enough- basically any scenario or circumstance.

I’m not certain of this though, as is an effect of what I believe having a forcibly open mind. Considering the possibility that I’m correct; that my mind is effective at questioning most aspects of life, then understanding the aspects, then I would theoretically question and understand my own mind, therefore making at least most of what I’m attempting to explain here correct. In this theoretical scenario, I would then also likely be correct that I have an open mind. I’ve realised having an open mind can be an entirely separate topic to be understood and explained. But basically, having an open mind is why I believe nothing should be certain, and therefore, is why I try to never be certain of what I claim.


I also believe there are other hindering, inferior aspects to my mind of course, as everyone does, which restrict and restrain me from accomplishing as much as I might prefer. But, as effective as I believe my mind works, I also believe I’m able to potentially understand those hindrances and attempt to improve the faults at least to some degree, using practical problem solving. Besides the potential to improve the negative aspects, I believe the positive aspects outweigh the negative. This is because of the relativity, practicality, adaptability, and usability (that I attempted to explain earlier) of the positive aspects. The plausibility of using those positive aspects in order to improve the negative ones, could be considered evidential of the outweighing positivity. This is all somewhat difficult to understand, and confusing, even (or especially?) to me, but at the same time seems to make at least some significant degree of sense, and be helpful in my own understanding of my own understanding (!?!), and, is why I’m appreciative of the opportunity of use, and grateful for my mind. (unless perhaps I’m just insane…)
(April 5, 2015 (Easter))

Sunday 2 April 2017

Vocabularisation

Perhaps some complex vocabulary, terminology or combinations of such can seem confusing. Lets take into consideration the components of literacy comprehension.

Any language is virtually a method of transferring ideas and thoughts into a commonly accepted outlined form of communication that should be decipherable, no matter how complex, using territorially commonly taught knowledge. I tend to think the English language is universal and adaptable. As long as the individual combinations of literary characters (words, if I'm using them correctly (even as I'm attempting to excessively emphasize the potential complexity of potential combinations of formerly referenced WORDS)  are within your vocabulary (you know what they mean)(or more simply; you understand the individual words), and if you attain the sufficient degrees of intellectual capabilities, you should be able to understand virtually any adaptation and combination of words, as long as they are structured to at least a moderately decent degree in relation to the standards of the universal outline (grammar (including such things as brackets, or brackets within brackets)) of that particular form of alpha-communication (language), and therefore you would theoretically be capable of understanding and comprehending almost anything you read (since most literary fits within that mentioned degree), which would then therein even include this very long, complicated, and potentially ironically grammatically incorrect sentence! More simply; if you’re smart enough, you should be able to understand pretty much anything written clearly. But, since this is perspectually, a theoreticality, I very well admit that I could be incorrect about that. 

As examplatory references of potential adaptational uses of language descriptions within this post, some words are technically spelled incorrect. They are underlined as a spelling mistake, but considering the relevant relation, under certain circumstances where it is practical, disregardance seems logical. As far as my common textual communication goes, there will likely be other similarly incorrect words. There might be technically correct adaptations of these words, with the same intended meaning as the technically incorrect ones, but if that's the case I couldn't think of, or didn't know the technically correct word. As long as the adaptations (extensions) of the words make sense -judging by regular common acceptance- then it should be virtually just as sufficient and understandable by anyone capable of comprehension of the fairly simple concept. Therefore, theoretically you should be able to adapt any base word using extensions (or whatever the technical term may be) of words.
That’s the indistinct boundary to any language, being the currently known and commonly accepted virtual database of vocabularisation.