You're quite sensitive, comically so. — Judaka

You know what's really funny? The predictable reactionary posts, when the focus shifts from the topic to the person. It's the first sign of a failure of intelligence and the taking over of emotional hissies, as can be seen in your laced posts. But then finger pointing doesn't interest me so carry on.

Looking at your thread here and your other discussion, name a poster who responded to you, who you're pretty sure understood what you were trying to say. We got a guy talking about drug abuse, we got a guy who totally ignored your OP and only responded to the title of your thread. In your other thread, just by your own responses, you know neither poster had any clue what you were talking about.

I'll help you out, none of them has any clue what you're talking about because you speak in vague generalities and draw unexplained conclusions from them. I don't know you, I don't care, I'm not trolling. There is no justification in your writing for why conformity leads to "the heart and mind being sluggish", "lifeless" and so forth. I lost interest but fair warning, I would assume anyone who responds to your OP has failed to understand your argument, be wary of people filling in your generalities with specifics that don't match your intentions. Best luck. — Judaka

It isn't my job to educate the clueless. I could however make exceptions and answer questions, as i have, but only if the sincerity and the seriousness of the questioner comes through in their posts, and in their tone. It will be a waste of energy and time to talk to people of questionable intent/posts, who seem to bait rather than be upfront, or are used to throwing funny hissy fits. Good luck.

Edit: I was right, English isn't your first language.

You say "thus" as though you've laid forth an argument but there's no argument, what is the "pattern of conformity" and what is the problem with it? — Judaka

The word thus was used as an acknowledgement of a fact....more precisely an acknowledgement of the resultant effects, of what was said prior to it's usage.

If English is your first language and you are able to read, then you should be able to see the arguments in the OP, including the ones you have put in quotes. If comprehension is an issue then i don't know what to say, except to urge you to go slow with lots of humility. To take your time to learn. If 'baiting' is what you are looking for, sorry, not interested. I am sure there may be others you can go to.

Edit: I will suggest using observation to look at your own life and how your mind works, if you are serious in going into your questions. But feel free to disregard my suggestion if you wish.

Do we have a choice at all? — TheMadFool

The question of choice arises only if one is unsure. It does not arise when there is a clear insight of the dangers involved.

Do we have a choice at all? We must, perforce, live life using a model best-suited for the time, place, and people. Plus, let's not forget that to have no model is itself a model. There's no escaping modelization. It's like the Buddhist desire conundrum: to end desire, one must desire (to end desire) — TheMadFool

" let's not forget that to have no model is itself a model". This is an old fallacious (therefore incorrect) reasoning usually used as a last resort. It lacks insight. Anyone that says "to end desire one must desire to end desire" hasn't understood the nature of desire.

Sorry, I went through your OP at least thrice but I don't see anything the likes of an objection that's and I quote, "...devastating in the realm of the psyche..." — TheMadFool

I was referring to your objection. I called it an objection, but you may also use words like argument, rebuttal, etc. Your objection to OP was that we need a model. This OP as well as my previous thread has explored why that's a bad idea in the realm of the psyche, and what it does to the human mind.

Well, labels are context dependent. — Shawn

They may or may not be context dependent, but in many cases they are certainly convenience dependent

.

But, there are some situations like labile emotions where they seemingly spontaneously arise, which might puzzle a person experiencing them. — Shawn

Anything will puzzle the puzzled, unless they start looking and inquiring for themselves.

Are emotions rational or irrational?

As i see it both are labels the mind attaches to emotions. It's not the labels themselves that are important/interesting, but it's the motivations and the process of labeling that's important.

Old ideas have withstood the test of time i.e. they're models of reality that got us this far, in one piece. A new idea (model of reality) has to run through the gauntlet of past ideas that've, beyond doubt, proven their worth. I think the rule of thumb here is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. — TheMadFool

Again, the objection of reinventing the wheel is a "practical" objection and does not apply to what's being talked about in OP. The objection is devastating in the realm of the psyche, for reasons mentioned in OP.

Which brings us to the fact of how we insist on living life through "models", methods, and molds. This insistence supports what's being said in the OP. When one is reacting/acting through models, logically they are living their life through a model, therefore a second hand living. That kind of living is restricted to the limitations of the model. It's not meeting life/environment with fresh and clear eyes.

Ah, no. If I throw a stone in the air, I know it will fall back to earth. But I have no knowledge of same, because it has not yet happened. Thus knowledge of particulars, called facts, which are always historical, and knowledge of a more general sort not particular but applicable to the particular. — tim wood

In the previous thread also cited in OP, a distinction was made between "Practical-Psychological" knowledge/problems. Your example of the stone falls under the first category and therefore inapplicable to the real matter being discussed, that is, the psychological aspects of a resistance to new information, and the inability to face a new moment with it's particular challenges.

I am not sure that I agree with your picture of the human condition, but I think that we have already touched on this slightly. However, what I am interested in and curious about is your title which asks about deterioration. Are you coming from an assumption that the human mind was better at some point in the past? Is such a deterioration something which happens in life due to experiences? Or, is your title referring to some kind of deterioration which has occurred historically in culture? — Jack Cummins

The OP has touched on the issue of "agreeing" and "disagreeing" in a subtle way (it may need another thread). Perhaps a second read might clarify. It has to do with conformity and looking through the past lens, as the OP has suggested. Since your response does not elaborate or come with a rebuttal. except an assertion of not agreeing, i guess there isn't much OP can do.

The OP isn't coming from any "assumptions" but from observable facts of our present condition, which are technically available for observation to everyone., But that observation doesn't take place because of certain defects. Some of the defects have been mentioned in OP as well as in the previous paragraph in present response.

And substances. Don't forget substances. Which can lead to deterioration of the body as well, though both are connected. Life can be pretty annoying when thought about in the wrong ways. Of course some aspects to life are rather non-ambiguous. — Outlander

The OP has touched on the subtle, more serious, and under the radar causes of deterioration of the human mind, which affects the body as well. It does not exclusively focus on the body per se. But i completely agree on the point of substances, and by extension to other factors which also function along the same lines.

It seems thoughts and thinking is a material process and a response of memory. Thoughts are verbalized experiences. The "I" is an emergent thought construct..

@Jack Cummins

To clarify my post above, if the inquirer wants to understand the nature of reality then he or she will ultimately come to the distinction mentioned above. They will be faced with all kinds of questions like:

What's the distinction between the two? Is it possible to understand both using the same set of tools and the same approach? What methods will one use and what are the limitations of such methods? Can that which is true be ever captured by 'the known'? What are the frontiers of knowledge? So on and so forth.

I realise that a 'shaped reality is subjective', but as far as I can see that is what we are left with individually, to work with, for better or worse. You speak about conditioning, and aspirations and this leads me to think that we are back to the conundrum of free will. This all depends how you view it, whether it is viewed as human beings being lead by external causes or making choices as individual actors. The key aspect is reaction vs action. It is complicated, in terms of the focus. One thing which I wonder about is whether we can create free will, or gravitate towards it, through greater consciousness or awareness. What I am trying to say is that rather than just being robots of conditioning, perhaps through greater understanding and insight we are able to attain greater levels of freedom of choice — Jack Cummins

Is there a question in the above?

There is reality and then there is truth.

But this will be a step up.

But, we don't have things simply dumped into us, because we can work with them and interact with our experiences — Jack Cummins

What you are calling "interract" is also called 'reactions'. The reactions are also predetermined by the particular conditioning. So the question then is can you face the facts as they are. That we are nothing but programmed reactions.

Like i said previously you cannot fall back into "the experts say", A critical exploration will reject that kind of authority, and see them as mere beliefs, which may or may not even be true. These theories are incomplete and evolving, thus cannot be trusted to give a complete picture. The only reliable tool you have is your own observation.

We can shape our own reality. — Jack Cummins

Yes. that's a popular and comforting belief, which chooses to ignore that the reality one shapes is based on one's own conditioning, and the aspirations that come out of such conditioning. A shaped reality is a subjective reality, and by definition isn't true reality.

Incorrect according to you. — Zenny

The dictionary will also say the same thing. I think i am done here. Thank you.

Okay, my question for clarification would be what is your basis for believing that we are merely 'a bundle of experiences' and that the 'human mind is a trashcan'? You have not provided a basis for this view or opinion? — Jack Cummins

The basis is observation of facts. It's not a belief, it is so. Is there anything in you, or me, or anyone else that isn't a product of conditioning? Conditioning being your experiences, your knowledge, everything that has been dumped into you (the trash can analogy) since you were a baby. By your family, by the school system, by your work environment, by the beliefs and value you affiliate with, so on and so forth.

So as it stands a human is nothing but a bundle of all those dumpings. A bundle of experiences. How you think, act and react comes from all that. It's an easy observation, but may not be a pleasant one to discover we are this, hence the resistance. In order to soothe away this pain you may invent some belief of a different factor like soul etc.But that's just a belief.

I just gave you some examples — Zenny

And i clarified that the usage of the words is incorrect. They are conflating two different facts.

You have not really given an argument at all, other than say that what I am saying is 'non-applicable'. You are suggested in your previous post that 'we are nothing but a bundle of experiences' and that ' the human mind is a trashcan' which reduces human beings to insignificance. Surely, a person is more than that. — Jack Cummins

I din't refute what you were saying as there is no need to refute a starwman.

Nor did i notice any questions seeking clarification.

So we just disagree on the word. — Zenny

No we are disagreeing on the fact. The fact being, a belief isn't the same as knowing. A belief is having a faith on something in absence of facts.

I believe in my ability to run — Zenny

I would say , " I know i can run". Knowing isn't a belief.

You say' 'the human mind has become a trashcan.' — Jack Cummins

You say' 'the human mind has become a trashcan.'
I think it is up to us to try to stop that from happening. We are constantly bombarded with all kinds of information on television, newspapers and the internet. Some of it tells of human beings behaving in horrific ways, and humanity is so large that is easy to end up feeling of complete insignificance.

However, I think that it is possible to go beyond all of that. I have times when I feel useless and I am sure that I have plenty of vices. Despite that, I do hold on to the quest to try and cultivate my mind through trying to cultivate my mind, through thinking,reading and writing, as well as interacting with people. Sometimes, I find groups the hardest aspect of life because group dynamics are so complex. But, ultimately, I believe that each one of us has to take responsibility for our life or destiny and I am determined to prevent my mind from becoming a 'trashcan.' — Jack Cummins

You have expounded on a non-applicable meaning to what was said. In any case i think i have addressed your initial objections.

Yep. Both are beliefs. How would you ascertain which beliefs are correct in general? — Zenny

If something is seen as a belief is there any need for further ascertainment? And for what purpose? No ascertainment will make a belief a fact. BTW what happened to the OP and the other replies on this thread?

I think that it is important to ask to what extent human beings are a product of the environment and predictable. It goes back to the nature vs nurture argument. I think that genetics comes into the picture as well. We can ask are criminals born or made? I think that it is complex mixture and experiences which people have can have such a detrimental effect in shaping how we become. But, I do think that some individuals seem to have the ability to rise above so many factors which are going against them, and I see this as an ideal worth aiming towards, because it can even be tempting to give up in the face of too much stress and oppressive life circumstances.

This is connected to learning to become human. I think that it is important to have ideals and dreams. I believe that if we don't strive towards the highest possible ones it is easy to be dragged to the lowest ones. I think it is worth thinking about people who have strived to be the best examples, such as Ghandi. — Jack Cummins

I think If we put aside all conceptual debates, the authority we attribute to the views of “experts”, learn to observe without the lens of acquired knowledge, and build the capacity to face facts even if they are unpleasant, then it should be obvious that we are nothing but a bundle of experiences. We are conditioned through and through by these experiences, not only psychologically but also biologically. Essentially the human mind has become a trash can, wherein by the general consensus known as society. we have agreed to shape and mold ourselves ideologically, practically, politically, morally, economically etc. This shaping/molding mostly doesn’t factor in what is right, good, just, virtuous, and beautiful. except as a passing reference or a footnote when its convenient and profitable to do so, but rather this programming has self-interest, profiteering , competition, violence, uglification etc. as it’s bedrock. So this is the humanity we are talking about aren’t we? A rather simple and easy observation.

But regardless of how it happened, the advent of science has had an extraordinarily, overwhelmingly positive impact on how we live. — Banno

The above assertion or conclusion doesn't come with an explanation of what do you mean by "positive". Upon deeper exploration you may find what you consider positive isn't all that positive.

If your comparison is based on previous civilizations and societies then also your comparison is moot, since there seems to be a gap or an amnesia of facts/knowledge. There are tons of archaeological and other kinds of evidence (pointing to a quality of science) that cannot be replicated even today.

I am surprised you have ignored the following comment:

What you fishing for?

I tend to lean on pragmatism, is that an interesting fish? — Shawn

What's that? — Shawn

I mentioned earlier about a "a convenient trade off". A relative empathy would also be considered as a conditional empathy. It will demand certain conditions to be met. It isn't given freely. It's like when you were saying earlier:

One's sphere of interest where they reside in is important towards this goal, surely. — Shawn

. This is like setting a condition.

But if we see that everyone suffers, including myself, then out of that com-passion ( etymology: getting together in sorrow) an unconditional empathy may take birth.

Which takes us back to my original example, we will have to see how we share our emotions, our mind, our consciousness, which is common to entire humanity.

What is beauty? Is beauty in the object or in the eye of the beholder? Is beauty mere symmetry or is there beauty in asymmetry? Is beauty objective or subjective? These are some of the questions to be pondered by anyone looking to understand beauty...

It may be beauty is neither in the object or the subject. It may be we do not create beauty and it's simply another phenomenon of nature. Like a law of instinctive resonance at a level which is beyond our normal awareness, yet part of the creative cosmos we live in.

In order to understand beauty we may have to look at it's effects on the human mind, which may go deeper than superficial explanations like dopamine release.

"Playing pretend is actually a good for of our critical thinking."

It seems to me, playing pretend is contrary to critical thinking. Playing pretend is a form of confirming to any given model, set, structure etc. Evan a parrot or a trained monkey can repeat and pretend what you are saying, but doesn't mean it's backed by critical thinking.

Besides, at a deeper level critical thinking maybe an oxymoron, since thought/thinking in general is based on a default confirming to prior knowledge, and therefore mostly lacks the independence required to discover something critical/new.

One's sphere of interest where they reside in is important towards this goal, surely.

So, what matters most is the fact that we can identify emotions and them reflexively promote some kind of 'care' or interest in what's worthwhile to promote for the benefit of those who suffer. — Shawn

As i see it, the above will then become a mechanical practice, some form of relative empathy, which is directed at certain goals. It will lack the certitude of genuine insight and will suffer from the defects of relativity, which is just like everything else we are used to. a convenient trade off.

Care to elaborate? — Shawn

Maybe i can use an example to do an addendum to the previous response.

If there isn't any disease or mutation then all of us share the same biological/physical components, perhaps the same DNA and gene blueprints, right? Then why is it hard to see that we also share the blueprint for same primary emotions, the blueprint for the same mind, the same consciousness? Are we really separate individuals or the fact is, it isn't your mind or my mind, it isn't your sorrow or my sorrow, but is a human/global sorrow? I don't know if this makes sense.

Care to elaborate? — Shawn

Sorry there was a typo. Please read it as :

"It seems, to be emotionally mature one has to be free from a persistent self interest and the thought of being a separate individual".

There is not much to elaborate other than the obvious. How can one be empathetic if they are constantly looking out for themselves and their self-interest?

How is relationship ( to relate) possible if we do not see the shared commonalities between the species?

I don't think our "humanity" is as mysterious as we make it sound. We are pretty much a product of our environment, conditioned, and predictable. And we have yet to learn what it means to be be a "human", as that word suggests.

It will depend on what you mean by emotional intelligence. If you mean things like empathy etc., humans were never very emotionally intelligent and it's getting worse. It seems to be emotionally mature one has to be free from a persistent self interest and the thought of being a separate individual.

If there is free will then it's there in all the boring things and the boring places that do not have much significance. For example, you can wash your left hand first rather than the right hand, or vice versa. Otherwise there is no such thing as free will in things that really matter. Not a possibility even biologically.

Both can be and are movements of beliefs. Both can be a source of conflict between humans.

It seems time is a psychological movement having it's base in memory.

Much of our affiliations are results of reactions. If you look deep you will find atheism isn't any different. Nor is theism. They are two poles of the same movement of hope and reactions. Both originate in the believer's conditioning, prejudices, and bias's.

Religion isn't the only belief based crutch we have, but it's the one that gets most heat Almost everything in our society is in some way or form belief based. All belief based structures, material, psychological, or societal are built around the idea of comfort and the comforting.