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.