Is Pain in Vain?

After distinguishing what pain is, and my theory of its purpose, from a technical perspective it seems like pain –whether emotional or physical- is a tool used to avoid a scenario where harm will come to you. From this point of view, pain is beneficial and helpful when in its intended context.

Most typical natural occurrences would be in the context of pains intended function. For example, a broken foot causes pain as a function to cause the individual to refrain from using it until it’s healed. Or the pain from food poisoning causes you to not eat that substance again, since it is harmful to your health. Emotional pain from being away from somebody you care for causes you to be more likely to stay together, which is typically beneficial. These are examples of the theoretically intended context, where pain should be beneficial to the individual, based on evolution. These basic functions of pain would apply to only basic humans, with a lack of extensive consciousness and therefore a lack of extensive scenarios where emotional pain becomes potential throughout life. As humans have evolved after the point of conscious awareness, natural selection no longer has a very strong effect.

Artificial selection –from conscious choice of human reproduction, as well as artificial sustenance of life- causes an adaptation of conscious awareness to be sensitively influenced, therein, causing a whole new variety of potential scenarios for emotional pain to become a theoretically unnatural side effect. In these unnaturally intended circumstances caused by artificial selection, emotional pain theoretically becomes applicable to a much wider variety of scenarios, since comprehension of concepts grows –and therefore potential for comprehension of a negative aspect. As emotional pain has developed to occur from knowledge of a negative aspect of an occurrence, the pain will then occur for the comprehension of most negative aspects, which people develop the capability to be aware of. This potential for emotional pain would likely inherently be a developmental stage of intellectual progression -given the initial existence of emotional pain-, but would likely not persist in the case of continued typical natural selection.

Therefore, emotional pain beyond any minimal practically beneficial scenario is likely an unintended side effect, resulting from human choice. The practical benefits of pain would apply only to typical, naturally occurring circumstances in life, without any drastic factor applied to a scenario by conscious choice. With the added potential for conscious intervention and therein an intended extremity of a variable being applied (by said conscious choice), comes the additional potential circumstance for irregular and unnecessary pain, regardless of side effects from artificial selection. This potential unnecessary pain –caused by conscious decision- is not beneficial, but only a result of choice.

So, is pain in vain? It seems the only types of pain in existence, which are non-beneficial (or in vain) are not inherently intended, but a result of free will and human choice. 

Purpose of Pain

What is the purpose of pain?

The first step in attempting to understand this significant question, might be to analyze the factors. One factor being pain, the question arises, what is pain? Pain is basically, technically negative signals going to the brain to warn that something harmful is occurring to the body. On the very basic and simple level of physical pain, which we share with the rest of animals, pain is a necessary requirement to warn from further damage. This type of pain is therefore arguably a beneficial concept.

Theoretically, the next type of pain would be emotional pain. Emotional pain is caused by the knowledge of something, and that knowledge causing a negative trigger in the brain, telling the owner something negative is occurring. In the case of animals, this negative trigger would most commonly be caused by separation from a typically necessary co-animal. By the theory of evolution, it would be beneficial for a lot of species of animals to live in co-operating with other animals of their own species in order to survive. Examples might be young animals being near their mother to be provided food and care, or the mother being near its offspring, in order to sustain their species population, or pack animals being with a pack to gain advantage on acquiring food, or defending. Since these relationships between animals would be beneficial, they would develop a negative trigger when separation occurs. This negative trigger would happen based on the knowledge of a scenario and could be considered the basic of emotional pain, rather than a direct physiological negative trigger such as hunger or a wound, being physical pain.

With such limited capable knowledge, animals would only have the small window for emotional pain based on the limited scenarios where they have developed the capability to have that negative trigger for their species typical benefit.

Humans on the other hand, have a profoundly vaster expanse of capable knowledge. With the development of conscious awareness in general, humans expanded the potential for knowledge almost infinitely. With the infinite scenarios and combinations of variables in this world, comes an unending possibility of knowledge. With all the potential for knowledge, comes the potential for the negative trigger based on knowledge of a negative circumstance. Therefore humans have a drastically increased potential for emotional pain.

Since it is based on knowledge, any emotional pain is therefore relative to the individuals’ comprehension and analysis of the knowledge. Emotional pain should be relative to the amount of knowledge (of which may be considered a negative occurrence), as well as that individuals interpretation of the knowledge, and comprehension to the degree of negativity of the knowledge. If someone comprehended nothing as negative to their perspective and understanding, they would therein feel no emotional pain. With the capabilities of analysis, processing, comprehension, and understanding, humans theoretically have the potential ability to determine –based on their perspective-, that any given circumstance is not a negative occurrence, and therefore intentionally avoid emotional pain.

Complete Consciousness

What is consciousness? It may seem simple at 1^st; awake and aware. But what is complete consciousness in terms of intellectual deductive capabilities? 1 way to put it into perspective, is In comparison to subconsciousness.  

Would complete consciousness simply be complete awareness and comprehension of the individual perspectives surroundings and immediate scenario setting? Or perhaps that would be neglecting effecting factors beyond the individuals’ immediate perspective. If being conscious is being aware of and taking into consideration as many variables and potentially conclusion-altering elements of a scenario, then theoretically the more effecting variables considered, the more conscious an individual is.

For example, if this computer had a broader consciousness, perhaps it would be aware of the factors present for the potential that subconsciousness is a word (and therefore not underline it as a spelling mistake:). Technically -by current recorded universally accepted standards-, it might not be a word, but maybe the computer would be aware and conscious of the broader prospect and practical principles involved in vocabulary –as an adaptable and constructible means of communication-. But, plausible deductions, and analysis of data of which something is conscious of, may be a separate topic pending distinguishment.

If an intellectual being was to be simultaneously aware of every element within a significant visual and audible range of its single location, it would be quite conscious of its surroundings. But with the adaptation of technology –or hypothetical significantly acute senses-, there is potential to be aware of occurrences to in incredibly drastic distance and area. Even with todays technological capabilities, there is the potential to perceive visual and audial data –through cameras and microphones linked to the internet- from a significant number of locations around the world. The quantity could be multiplied exponentially, as well as accuracy capabilities increased to record nearly any and all current occurrences throughout this planet, -and beyond…

So for the maximum potential of consciousness, you would need to disregard human biological limitations, and take into consideration the possibility of an intellect capable of simultaneously perceiving a virtually limitless quantity of data of every situation occurring anywhere and everywhere. Basically,,. Complete consciousness would be the consciousness of God.   

Power of Purchase

How does money effect this world? How significant is the prospect of the dollar value associated with… everything? This is what I seek to analyze, process, comprehend, and understand.
Considering money is the universal credit system for valuation of virtually all products and services on the planet, money probably has quite a significant effect on the world.

To begin to analyze this, understanding the cause and effect of the money value of any given item, might be a reasonable starting point. The cause of the increase or decrease of the value of an item is typically supply and demand, and more specifically, the quantity, quality, and difficulty of acquirement of an item, compared to the perceived importance and requirement. So, in theory, the only way any object or service can attain a high dollar value, is as a result of people thinking they need something enough to pay that amount. Therefore, a different perception of importance in this world would make a drastic change in cost of items.

Even though greater desire for an item is necessary to increase the value, that doesn’t mean greater desire will always increase the value. Since quantity and difficulty of acquirement are also variables effecting value, high quantity or low difficulty can sometimes counteract an increase of demand. If there is a high enough quantity or low enough difficulty to produce, the value may not go up, or even go down after readjustment of resources, allowing quantity or ease of production to further increase. 

The effect of the money value of any given item is the quantity purchased and produced. If a higher quantity is produced as a result of higher dollar value, more resources will be put toward producing it as well as toward making the product easier to acquire and of better quality. All resources on Earth are limited, and when relocated toward production of one item, less of that resource remains for use of alternate items. For any product, including variations of quality or style of a product, many varying types of resources are used, some of which are in the form of physical material used to create the item itself, to manipulate/ transform the object, to package, transport, and to store the product. Besides physical material for a product, time is another relevant resource used, in terms of human interaction for production, management, and further development.

The expanse of total resources used for any typical product is perhaps ill perceived and underestimated with a typical lack of awareness and thorough comprehension. An item with an appointed high value is prioritized for these many limited resources. Based on my perspective, if a logical, rational, and intelligent valuation of objects or services were applied, the entire economy, society and therein world would be theoretically significantly -if not completely- different than the current scenario. Any products lacking in practical, functional benefit would have a fairly low value. Products and services for entertainment or personal preference wouldn’t necessarily have zero value, as stress release and enjoyment can have a beneficial functional effect. With a lower but existent value on entertainment, it would still be allocated its position in culture and society, just with a lower quantity of resources used, in ratio to practical elements. Perhaps a profound difference would be value in variances of products. With function prioritized, and the superficial aspect considered minimal in value, much fewer variances of a product would be produced. Therefore resources would be used much more efficiently for production and development of individualized product.  

So keeping in mind the overall effects of the value of -nearly anything and everything in this world-, being a seemingly significant and relevant influence on the allocation of the limited resources we have, it would seem rational to take care and caution when making our contribution to the cause of this effect, being quantity of purchase. If able to comprehend such a concept, and care about much more of this world than oneself, then if the scenario happens to arise with the capability and perhaps temptation for excess purchases, the purchases would still be taken into significant consideration. The potential to make an eccentric improvement on this world as a whole, may reside within the understanding of the components of contribution in combination with the power of purchase.

Prequel Chance, Equal Enhance

All should be considered equal! Right? Taking that as an absolute, would seemingly be quite drastic in reality. But, after analysis of pride, it seems all alternative individuals should be considered no less important than you. And after questioning contribution, it seems it is generally beneficial. Therefore contribution to the equal distribution of all personal resources to others (being of equal value) would seem logical. The idea of others being considered of the same value, has got me wondering; to what extent should support of others, or perhaps contribution to a grander prospect, spread? I think an understanding of equality in value of others is necessary (as understood from negating pride), as well as equality in opportunity of circumstances.

Theoretically, if all other individuals are considered of equal value to you, all others should also have the same quantity of resources. You would then relay all efforts and gained resources to any and all alternate individuals with less resources. This is a plausible theory, but living this way in absolute would be an extremist lifestyle –though some people do choose this-, and would seem unnecessarily selfless, as you would end up only supporting yourself with the bare minimum resources for sustaining your life, while giving everything to all others with even the slightest lower amount. To keep the extent of generosity to a less extreme and seemingly more reasonable degree, perhaps a better understanding of equal opportunity is necessary.

Assuming all individuals are of equal value, a method of determination of quantity of each individual is required. Typically you’d measure the quantity of resources each individual has, to compare potential current equality, and therein adjust the quantity of resources from one to the other in attempt to allow all to become equal by quantity of resources. But, with the constant in this situation being humans, the added variable of free will and choice should be taken into account. Considering all individuals have the option off free will, affecting the quantity of resources they have, the quantity to be measured in order to compare equality, should perhaps be opportunity rather than resources. By comparing opportunity that each individual had to begin with, this accounts for the individuals’ variable of free will, since accumulated resources would be varying as the current quantity based on what that individual chose to make of the beginning opportunity of circumstances, as well as ongoing opportunitial circumstances. Comparing opportunity therefore, would be a more accurate analysis to determine overall equality in alternate individuals being valued equally. 

Precise, specific circumstances of opportunity of others can never be known, leaving only an assumed estimation of what opportunities they have had. If you consider all alternate individuals which have had an estimatedly, generally equal opportunity as yourself in life, as being in equal position, then regarding them as equal value would generally not imply relaying resources or efforts towards them to any degree above yourself. Instead others of estimated less beginning opportunity would be the only ones to require adjustment of resources in their direction, in order to attempt equal current position of all constants of the same value.

Evaluating initial opportunity then becomes the necessary determinant in order to attempt to make all those values in this world equal.

Valuation

A very important element of life that I’ve recently discovered is perception of ones-self compared to others. This is a commonly distinctive issue when it comes to Christianity but, as I’ve noticed, most anything of the sort can just as well be applied to any belief system. In terms of Christianity; this regards the very difficult to distinguish and overcome (in my personal experience at least) sins of Pride and Judgement.

In my beliefs, as what I’ve determined, the sin of Pride is a result of thinking ones-self is of greater value than others. This includes crediting yourself for positive attributes, accomplishments, capabilities, and ownerships. Where-as credit and appreciation should be given to God for all accounts, for his allowance. It should be understood that nobody has any authority or plausible overall awareness, to make such drastic claims to one person being of greater value than another. Every person ever born is only at the mercy of circumstance that God happened to allow the existence of, and potentiality of accomplishments. Therefore everything you are capable of is only by result of your uncontrolled initial spawn of existence, and there-in not credible to you. With no primary credit or authority of valuation, self-pride and arrogance is illogical.

The same principles regarding valuation and legitimate authority, apply to judgment. Where pride is valuing you above others, judgment can be considered valuing someone specific, lower than others. Since everyone is a result of circumstantial implementation by a force far beyond and before our control, how could we reasonably credit any individual over another, or consider one of a greater elevated state? I find keeping in mind my own numerous faults, helps to relate to another who may initially seem like a lower value individual. Then it can be realized that every person is similar in their recurrences of faults, and with no primary credit applicable to the individual, degrees of faults -or value based on such- don’t seem plausibly, fairly distinguishable by any individual.

As I will try to do- next time you begin thinking you’re better than someone else, or someone is worse than everyone else- THINNK AGAIN.

The Side of Pride in Hide

Is being proud a sin? Is it morally wrong to be proud?

Firstly, I’ll try to understand what pride is. To be proud of something –as I figure- is to feel happy, and impressed, and satisfied, and hold great value to, and think important of something attributed to an individual.  If you’re dealing with the technical description of pride, perhaps that would be close. Using that perspective of the term “pride”, there seems to be little to no negative attribute to pride. But, sometimes alternatively to a technicality, there is reality. The description of a term in reality is only what that term is interpreted as, by whoever is relevant. So, as my best guess of the interpretation of the term, in relation to who is relevant, the specific description of pride also adds an additional attribute with a more distinctive connotation. In my best guess, the additional connotation to pride from common perception would be holding greater value to something attributed to that individual, than others.

Its my theory that this aspect of holding greater value to a personal tribute, than the equivalent tribute potentially of others, is what brings the negative aspect to pride. In regards to being a sin, this makes sense, considering –at least by my understanding- the most general and vastly applicable condition God wants us to live by, is basically to love others as you love yourself, or in an alternate understandable perspective, hold equivalent great value to all as you do for yourself. Therefore being proud would be in violation of this condition, by considering ones personal possession or essence of being, of greater value than others.

That being from a religious perspective, and to try to understand it fairly from all perspectives –as I try to do for the sake of open-mindedness, and indiscriminateness- there is also the view of someone non-religious, which from all my findings and experiences, always seems to be virtually equivalent in concluding meaning and understanding.

In that regard, being morally wrong (or for purpose of attempted… simplicity of my understanding of what morality means; doing something with an unnecessarily, universally negative impact), considering yourself (or something personally regarded as yours) to be more valuable than someone else, is unfair, unjust ideology, and therefore morally wrong.

This can also be understood from an even less specific and more universally applicable perspective (which is often what I aim for in an attempt for complete equivalent consideration of perceiver), by trying to view the key values and aspects of what is in question, in a less specific manor. And in that regard, any alternate unknown variable value (someone else) should be theoretically equivalent from a completely unbiased perspective. Therefore, pride would be a mathematically intellectual inaccuracy (in robot terms).

So in conclusion, as I just worked out to understand myself, being proud seems to legitimately have negative connotation from all perspectives, when considering pride as the commonly perceived term, of holding greater value to ones own, than others.

Judgury

Judging someone is typically considered to be a bad thing. But I wonder; is it to all extents and if not, to what degree? The 1^st thing to understand might be what judging specifically is, exactly. I suppose one way to describe it would be; making a determination of the value of someone or something, to a rated degree of positive or negative. When stereotypically judging someone, the variable being judged is the individual themselves. Alternatively, more reasonably and realistically, the variable to be judged could be the action or presentation.

It seems fair to have an opinionated valuation of the degree of negativity of an action, as certain actions are fairly accurately distinguishable for having a negative impact or effect on either the variable performing the action, or the alternate variables effected by the action (whether intended to be effected or not). Therefore, the value of that action could be considered negative. All differing types of actions would have a different degree of potentially acceptable and understandable negativity valuation, and each type of action would also differ depending on the specific circumstances and minor variable differences. Actions on the higher degree of obvious negativity (often including actions with the negative attribute agreed upon by the performer) should therefore be more fairly accepted as a theoretically, conclusively, judged negative action. These actions could theoretically be considered universally incorrect (if correctness is understood as being beneficial). Potentially some aspects that may be judged upon another are based on personal opinion and preference. Therefore, to make a definitive evaluation these aspects that are opinionated and respectively indefinite, is illogical.

Even though theoretically some actions, which are to higher degree of acceptably, regarded negative value, the individual themselves performing the action should not be held definitively accountable to be valued negatively in respect to their action, in all seemingly fairness. An action itself can be commonly interpreted as being definitive, considering the outline of the action from beginning to end, as well as all potentially minor variables effecting the action, are typically, generally graspable and regardable. Whereas on the other hand, the individual performing the action cannot be seemingly definitive, considering the profoundly vast and various aspects and variables relating to the individual, are too complex to grasp or ultimately understand (for humans). This is why, logically; no definite valuation of another person should be made.

In conclusion,,, don’t judge!

May 10, 2015

Mind Bind

The bind of the mind is being contained by the natural reaction part of the brain that just reacts without comprehension or decision based on analyzed factors. This bind of our natural instincts causes people to do things based on minimal to no consideration of details of factors affecting and affected by the outcome of a choice. This can cause chain reactions of one mind to the next in a bind of many minds, in a way such as one or some people choosing an action will influence the rest to act the same.

It is animals natural instinct to react in unison with likewise situated co-species’ in a mind bind. Imagine a heard of antelope grazing in a field. Then one starts to run. It is the natural instinct for all the antelope to follow, as subconscious reaction has developed to act this way based on past instances where the one spotted a predator. The antelope are in a mind-bind together and react as the others do. This is beneficial in most cases with minimal complexity of scenarios and situations in which animals live. But humans don’t have such simple lives with simple scenarios with simple decisions. Human life has been brought into great complexity from society, technology, community and civilization, and requires more complex mindfulness.

But people often act the same way, when a lack of conscious consideration is present, which will happen at times to everyone, but of course more significantly and more often with some people. This can be seen in specific groups which have been formed by common interest, where some of the group will do something, and the rest will follow, in perhaps a degree of blind trust. And mind binds can also happen with general indistinct selections of people, depending on who is easily influenced, and easy to react with a lack of reasoning and consideration. This sort of person can be influenced and therein bound by vastly varying elements of action, depending on what element is being exposed to the person in order to be influenced. In a simple case of; run or die, as in the antelope situation, it can be beneficial, such as perhaps in a crowd of people, someone runs after hearing a terrorist bomb threat, so others run as well.

 A grouped mind-bind can be time efficient –with the reduced time of each making a decision- but is more probable to be inefficient in effectivity and accuracy. The fewer results there are, the less accurate the overall average results will be. So, the fewer individual decisions made -based on conscious consideration- the less accurate the overall decision will be, and therefore less likely to be correct.

As a more complex societal scenario example, people can be accumulately influenced to join a negative causing mind-bind like the Nazis. Each individual linked into the mind-bind with a lack of conscious consideration of all the affecting factors in the situation. It was perhaps a more complex mind-bind, with extensive effort put into influence, in order to grasp an increased amount of minds in the bind, by manipulating elements which would influence a deeper degree of potential conscious consideration. But, still an example of a dangerous mind bind and the lack of correctness which can result in the complexity of human society.

With modern technology and networking, there is an increased risk of potential mind bind. Considering the capabilities of speed, and quantity of connections of communication, using todays technology, the potential effects of a mind-bind are significantly increased, and therefore the risk as well. So if you don’t want to be a mindless tool used to destroy the world, UN-bind your mind!

Calculative Decisions

Your brain has a calculator function. You’re probably unaware of this function, specifically, but you use it every day (assuming you’re not brain dead), and the capabilities of this function are far beyond any artificially produced calculator! You probably think to yourself; well that cant be true. My calculator can do massive, complex numerical calculations instantly and my brain can’t even compare. This may be partially true, as the conscious part of your brain really can’t do such vast numerical calculations so quickly, but your brain does much more complex equations than the basic distinct numerical values that your artificial calculator does.

An organic lively brain can take in such an immense variety of variables for a calculation, that a store bought calculator seems like a useless toy in comparison. Every time you make a decision, you are theoretically solving a complex equation involving a large quantity of variables, each with a value to a degree that is very difficult to distinguish.  Of course your organic calculator isn’t exceptionally accurate –except perhaps, arguably, in the rare case of a high functioning genius- which is why you often make mistakes or regrettable decisions. But inaccurate calculations should be expected when there’s such a vast expanse of variables to estimate the value of. In any science or mathematical operation, with imprecise values of variables, come imprecise values of answers. In practice of these calculations within regular life; the variables are anything relevantly influencing the ultimate effect of the outcome of the decision. The value of these variables is how likely they are to influence the outcome, as well as the degree that it influences. The result to the calculation is the option presented within the decision, which has the (typically indistinct) highest probability of being most beneficial.  These complicated calculations can be done by “dumb” animals, just as by humans.

Animals do the calculations subconsciously, without knowing they’re doing it, while humans (at least some of the time) do the calculation consciously, being aware that a decision is being made. The relevant advantage of the human brain is of course the capability to make an intellectual decision, rather than the -understandably considered- inferior typical animals brain, acting on pure instinct, without awarefully analysing the situation, and general variables present. The particular mechanism used within a brain, (which makes the distinguishment of the value -of the potentially large quantity of variables-) determines whether the choice ultimately made, is a conscious intellectual decision, or a subconscious instinctual action. This humanly unique capability of conscious awareness is theoretically what has given us such an advantage in life, allowing such dominance, expansion, and reign. The capability to consciously analyze any situation, and calculate a decision based on relative valuations, seems to have proven throughout the history of Earth, to be effectively more accurate, and in turn beneficial. At least self-servingly short term…

Conscious Conditioning

Is conscious conditioning plausible, or an oxymoron? If referring to the individual being conditioned, as the same individual which is conscious of the conditioning, at first this seems like it wouldn’t work since the individual is aware of the deliberate manipulation.

Firstly, the term conditioning should be understood in order to try to comprehend the whole concept of conscious conditioning. In this context, the meaning of the word conditioning is intended to be: having a regular subconscious reaction to a common factor. To be conditioned to a common factor, can mean the individual has a positive, negative, or neutral reaction. It is the fundamental function of the basic subconscious mind, as a simple intellectual process. The subconscious mind of people, as well as being the majorative (if not exclusive) mind function of most or all animals, is a simple, less accurate, but perhaps more time efficient, method of distinguishing differences in variables, and causing a reaction to the variables at hand. Basically, conditioning is causing a certain reaction from an individual, as a result of a common repeated scenario. The reaction can be a physical reaction, which would typically be a developed reflex, or more subtly muscle memory, created by a repeated scenario. But that reaction as a conditioned reaction is always created, caused and influenced by the minds interpretation of the reaction being positive or negative. The reaction can be feeling positive, happy, and joyful –typically caused by something beneficial to the individual to trigger instinctual positive reactions in the brain-, or negative, sad, and painful –typically caused by something harmful to the individual-. These subconscious reactions to scenarios of repeated variables are the basic method of intelligence, and inaccurate at distinguishing differences in variables within the repeated scenarios, but can theoretically be manipulated to the benefit of the individual by means of conscious control.

With conscious awareness of any specific scenario, the individual can distinguish far more accurate differences in variables, and be aware of minor differences which change the minds comprehension from positive to negative, or vice versa. This is the basics of conscious comprehension vs subconscious reaction, and when effectively understood, can theoretically be applied to not only make far more accurate and effective decisions using conscious comprehension, but also to condition subconscious reaction to have the preferred outcome.

This can be done by simply being consciously aware of a benefit to a scenario involving variables which your subconscious does not recognize and would typically have a negative reaction to, or being aware of the negative aspect of a scenario which your subconscious mind would inaccurately have a positive reaction to. By consciously distinguishing the more accurate perception of a potentially complex scenario repeatedly, as being positive or negative, your mind will receive that more accurate feedback of either negative or positive, and in the future will remember that influence, and be much more likely to make that more effective and accurately perceived reaction. Once your mind begins to have this reaction automatically, without the need for conscious comprehension, and accurate differential distinguishment, you have then consciously conditioned your subconscious. Theoretically, there could be no need to use subconscious thought, and therefore no need to condition it, if someone was to make all decisions consciously –and therefore more accurately-, but at this point of development of the human mind –at least as far as I’m aware- conscious comprehension and decision making takes a much longer time than subconscious reaction.

As an overview of conscious decision making in ratio to subconscious reaction, it seems most efficient to use conscious comprehension for decisions which seem important and significant, and subconscious reaction for lower priority and less meaningful scenarios. The significant advantage of conscious conditioning is you can consciously decide what is most beneficial for mostly every scenario, even those seemingly less important situations, and maneuver your subconscious reaction to be that beneficial option from that point on.

Conscious conditioning is virtually an optimal hybrid concept of the most efficient and effective application of mind processes.

Live in Fear, Live in Mere

When space in life is occupied by fear, that life is often settled for, at a level of mere. Fear isn’t always upfront obvious, but sometimes inconspicuously blended in while holding things back. That hesitation to try something new, that reluctance to go for a venturous life experience, that worry that people will think you’re weird for not sticking with the usual, is most likely the same culprit discretely convincing you to avoid any irregular scenarios and avoid anything resembling change. That’s of course, fear trying to keep you firmly in your comfort zone. That fear is most often an unnecessary product of your subconscious to keep you in an overly cautious safety bubble. On the rare occasion, it can be useful in a survival situation. But being out of its habitat in 95% of modern day life, fear oversteps its boundaries of relevant application, often holding back a significant amount of potentiality. The good thing is, there’s a recent development which is counter-active to the restraints of fear, when used effectively; your mind.

Being mindful and conscious of irrational fear is a simple, yet significantly relevant part of overpowering it. Personally; after testing and challenging my irrational subconscious anxieties (and believe me, the amount wasn’t mere), I come to the overwhelming result and confirmation that; living in fear, will leave you living in mere –degrees of satisfaction. After living through a fairly profound degree of transference, from significant social anxiety –to now facing (and reducing) that irrational fear weekly, and intentionally challenging it, in an environment suitable to me –in order to manipulate my subconscious gradually- -(and there marks an interesting dashed section proceeding a dash, then this extra dash -of course- to exemplify my point). Oh, and I guess also marks this sort of indistinct (yet notable) point in my life, where I’ve made a beneficial change and am grasping it all, too..-.

So, that irrational fear you are facing in life –yes! That at least one –maybe multiple- you just thought of- can be overcome, and not so difficultly either, simply by facing it and registering the relevant benefits of doing so (or conscious conditioning as I’ve come to understand it). Take it from my relevant personal experience, as well as my comprehension and understanding that; to live in fear, is to live in mere.

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.

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))

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. 

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))

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.

Adequate Accuracy of Literal Literacy

How accurate is The Bible? How thorough, direct, literal and how true? 

Maybe just as much as it needs to be, to accomplish the task at hand? People will often refer to specific lines of the bible in attempt to discredit its validity, assuming its description should be 100% direct, thorough, literal, and distinguished. Would this be realistically practical for the Bible? In order for the Bible to be completely thorough and accurate, I would think there would end up being 100+ times the quantity of literacy in order to completely accurately and thoroughly describe every situation, scenario, and occurrence, as well as every intended lesson to be imparted which is described. As far as I know, there were many more scriptures eligible for the Bible but which were sorted through and reduced. It seems it would simply be impractical to include all potential elements, as the quantity would be excessive, making it much more difficult to translate and reproduce. It would also make the task of reading the Bible seem even much more daunting than it already is, as well as time consuming to complete. Therefore, it seems apparent the Bible is not 100% thorough, but more summarized and generalized.

                This doesn’t necessarily mean it is not 100% true. Something can easily still be completely true, even if every aspect and element of the account is not described to an absolute specific. So, in the scenario where something is true but generalized, some individual discretion is required for effective interpretation. By deductive reasoning, The Bible is not completely thorough, but could potentially still be true, with the requirement of interpretation. Many variables can come into play regarding interpretation, considering the context of the specific scenario being described, the customs, culture, rules, and regulations of the location and time period, and accuracy of vocabulary used –including translation. Considering the amount of variables -and potential drastic misinterpretation, as a result of misunderstanding even a small variable, to a small degree-, comprehending and accurately understanding the Bible could therein likely be a difficult and challenging process. Within the task of interpreting meaning, come the additional variables of literalness and directness to be deciphered and assumed, by method of regarding the context. With such a significant and theoretically-regarded influential element of life, the margin for mistake in interpretation would be potentially dangerous, which seems to have been proven repeatedly in the past –as well as occurring presently-, by mislead, off-track “Christians”.

So before believing someone who claims there’s a contradiction based on 2 separate specific lines of text they found, and before altering your life after reading about a rule in 1 specific circumstance, take into consideration the interpretation needed for understanding something as complex as The Bible.

Denominator

What is the common denominator? What is the uncommon divisor? Is there only one correct result?

Of denominations of Christianity, I would say the common denominator is God of Christ, the uncommon divisor is belief of details and details of belief in regards to God, and the expanse of correct results is the question.

I think most denominations have the (uncommon divisor) detailed belief that there is only one correct result. Which does seem to be common, but the uncommonality is which divisor causes the correct result, since each denomination believes their own divising details of belief –regarding God and Jesus- are the correct divisor to come to the correct result. The correct result in life and belief, would be assumitively, living how God would want and ultimately ending up in heaven. So, each denomination theoretically believes only their detailed beliefs of Gods preferred methods of lifestyle will lead them to heaven. Most denominations are detailed enough on specific lifestyle, to restrict only that detailed method as the appropriate method. Based on this belief system, the majority of people, would not be living correctly (and therein, not reach the result of heaven), only because of a few detailed differences in lifestyle. These detailed differences of lifestyle are majoritively based on life circumstance. The effecting circumstances of life –being either fluke or intent of God-, would be basically every element of life which a person is born into. The elements would include general surrounding influences of culture and family. These would play the profound role of influencing a person in method and temperament of general ways of thinking, as well as more specific available -and degree of push of- information and knowledge.

It could be argued that natural acquirement of capabilities of determining the (hypothetically) correct details of lifestyle, overpower circumstance of upbringing, allowing the possibility of finding the correct details of lifestyle regardless of circumstances. This would be the argument that nature is overpowering of nurture, but even if this were the case 100% of the time, a vast amount of circumstances would land people in scenarios with the complete lack of availability of information required to come to the determination of the hypothetical correct lifestyle, therefore a significant amount of situations would happen that the person cannot come to the correct result no matter their potential capabilities of nature.

Basically, most people don’t have the available resources in their life to come to a specified detailed determination of lifestyle based on most denominational beliefs of required detailed lifestyle. In less technical terms; according to most denominations, God wants people to live their specific way, which you would need to learn from that denomination. This doesn’t seem likely to me, that God would require a specific lifestyle method, which can only be known by circumstantially being born into an environment which will press upon the person that specific lifestyle method. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to think God would have a specific detailed way of life of which only some people might happen to be born into the potential to know of, and out of those people, only the ones who choose to follow those specific rules (including the possible obedience based on fear) are the ones reaching the correct result.

 In contrast, if the divisor belief is that there is not only one correct result –but a range of correct results-, based on the prospect that the correct result is not so specific because the divising detail is not so specific. Without such a specific detailed lifestyle required, this allows the possibility that many lifestyles (which may happen to be detailed based on any circumstances) still end in a correct result. This allows the possibility of reaching the correct result, with any plausible circumstances whether nature or nurture takes the forefront. Again, in less technical terms; if the belief is that a more general way of life is the only requirement to achieve the correct result, many other denominations would also be a correct way of life –as they would also fit the general correct lifestyle-, and any person born into any life-stance has the potential to be correct.

In the end, it seems to me that the specificity of lifestyle to reach the correct result is quite general, and a plausible description of lifestyle might simply be; be considerate of others. Or in other terms, as I think most denominations would agree, love one another as you love yourself, also as Jesus tried to infer –happening to be one of the main commonalities of belief between denominations, to follow Jesus-. Perhaps the specifity of divisors –being denominations details- aren’t so important, but more so the simple, more general range of divisors. After all, regarding the divisors, that which is in common, is God as the denominator.  

Principles, Preached or Practical

How do practical, logical, objective, calculated decisions compare to preached, religious moral, principles?

I’ve come to the perceived idea that they are almost equivalent in result and effect from a general point of view. The general principles of religion tend to be aligned with rational and logical decision making from my experience. It depends on your interpretation of religious principles, but I’m basing this theory on a lot of what I’ve learned about general Christian principles formed by following the Bible.

The basic general principles based off of the Bible could be summarised as treat others kindly –as you would want to be treated. From this, many scenarios with many variables can be handled. The same scenarios and factors of variables would be handled the same way if the method of action was led by logical calculation. A Christian would tell the truth despite the chance to gain something, just as a robot programmed to make logical calculated decisions likely would. It would theoretically calculate the requirements of a presumably equivalent being, to be equivalent, and therefore no reason to alter the possession of a positive element, from 1 being to another of equivalent value. This general perspective of equation evaluation can be applied to many scenarios and circumstances of variables, just like the basic moral of Christianity. This equationalistic view is the extreme of objective decision making, and therefore likely a good comparison –as comparing the most extreme of 2 terms is likely to show the most extreme differences. Taking either of these basic generalised principles, the result will theoretically be the same when applied to many life discrepancies. Examples which I have analysed would be; contribution, judgement, pride and honesty.

In any case, it seems principles of logical practicality are in essence, the same as principles of religious preaching.