You read Feeling Good no? Quite a decent book.

My only question that remains, is why aren't we handing out these books for free to people who need them the most based on the efficacy of treatment on said disorders. — Posty McPostface

Then who would be paying to go to the therapist, or even better have the state pay for them to go to the therapist?

You read Feeling Good no? Quite a decent book. — Agustino

Yes, it's sort of a dialectical therapy with one's self. Just that you have to train your inner therapist to identify which feelings are a result of what thoughts and vice versa. It's hard at the start; but, pays dividends with time and practice.

I would say that CBT is primarily empowering. A patient feels like they can address an issue once they draw out the tables of initial thought, then analyze the cognitive distortion, and then engage in the cogntive distortion through a sort of REBT method. I think REBT and CBT are twins in some sense.

Then who would be paying to go to the therapist, or even better have the state pay for them to go to the therapist? — Agustino

Well, unenlightened posted a while ago about Open Dialogue in regards to more serious disorders like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. So, there's room for therapy. Just that CBT can be done at any time or moment of crisis for an individual.

All of this leaves me with a rather simple question.

Are people inherently irrational? And, if so, doesn't CBT show that people can be less irrational if not more rational in regards to how they perceive themselves with respect to society and the world?

The synaptic pruning is to throw away all the errors of trial and error. The inner voice may be very excited in fits of passion, and that's why those passages need to be pruned, to ensure that we don't mistakenly go back to what was already been determined as the wrong way. But that does not mean that we cannot continue to seek new ways, continue in our method of trial and error, long past the days of childhood. — Metaphysician Undercover

I merely brought up synaptic pruning as a comparative analogy to show how the brain - when a person' cognitive maturity reaches the right age - sheds useless aspects of our developmental learning in order to make it more open and sophisticated for adulthood; so when we reach this transcendence and begin to think as an autonomous agent, we shed or prune our reliance to conform to society or those close or around us, removing toxic people from our life, having the courage to experience the things that we want and not what others want from us. We shed those things in order to start improving our own language and identification to the external world.

Recently, in a dream, I climbed onto a high roof with someone else, to do some repair. Suddenly, I started screaming as if for help, like a little child. This surprised me, even in the dream, because the roof wasn't extremely steep and I'm not afraid of heights. Then I was going down the sloop of the roof as if I was being drawn toward the edge. I was panicked with fear, but at the same time, I knew that this is not difficult, the roof is not too steep, I must just keep away from the edge, and I will not fall. For some reason though, I could not control the fear. And the fear overwhelmed my power to do what I knew I could do, stay away from the edge. The fear overcame me to such a great extent, that I was ready to give in and let the thing I feared take me. It was like the fear was so strong that it forced me to give in to the thing that I feared, when I knew that I could avoid it. This dream very much surprised me because that is not something I would normally do. In a dangerous situation, such as driving a car which has gone out of control, I'll fight it to the end, trying to regain control. — Metaphysician Undercover

You know, while Jung did have rather ambiguous theories, I am compelled to believe that our subconscious does speak to us in a language that we understand and does this through stories. When I think of the bible, for instance, it is attempting a moral education through stories, or like parables where we seem to understand or interpret aspects of our deeper, subjective self in them. In a way, this consciousness of our own being is really attempting to piece together and articulate our own story. It is as though you are reasonable and conscious enough to see the absurdity of this fear and yet you are still somehow afraid, that while not that high up seem to be overcome with the idea that you were in danger and this somehow epitomises the angst that prevents those from letting go of the irrational fear to reject our former, given identity and to start creating our own. It is interesting that it appears to be at home, as though there is a fear of independence.

I suppose this is just like death itself. It's one of those things that you try to avoid, and we can usually avoid it by being in control of ourselves. However, eventually we have to face the decision. Am I going to resist and fight it to the end, in which case, the fear, panic, or even just the effort, might actually bring it on earlier, or should I just go with the flow? — Metaphysician Undercover

Heidegger does not speak of overcoming death - in the sense of 'death' being one actually dying physically - but rather overcoming the death of this given identity; as mentioned, when we are young, we are given the translations of our perceptions and experiences by others, that they tell us how to think and behave and we form our reality based on these given themes, but when our brains reach that cognitive maturity, it begins to translate these experiences autonomously only we do not understand or cannot articulate what they mean since we are brand-new at the experience. We suddenly become conscious that we are shifting away from that given identity or that given language that we use to translate reality and that is frightening, it is like everything that you are is untrue or false.

This is the 'angst' this moving away from what we thought was reality or the truth and most are unsuccessful in reaching that level of autonomy; they often retreat back to conforming, back to doing what others tell them whether it is friends or parents or partners, and with capitalism and the social media or network, it is becoming easier and easier for people to think that they are autonomous or independent, tricking themselves and others alike, this idea that they are individuals when they blindly move in masses. Changing your hair colour or wearing different clothes does not make you different. As we have the capacity to be self-aware, we have the capacity to recognise our separateness and this detatchment is the very anxiety that overcomes us.

Yes, it's sort of a dialectical therapy with one's self. Just that you have to train your inner therapist to identify which feelings are a result of what thoughts and vice versa. It's hard at the start; but, pays dividends with time and practice.

I would say that CBT is primarily empowering. A patient feels like they can address an issue once they draw out the tables of initial thought, then analyze the cognitive distortion, and then engage in the cogntive distortion through a sort of REBT method. I think REBT and CBT are twins in some sense. — Posty McPostface

Yes. It is a process of learning to think through your problems in a manner that is actually productive, as opposed to ruminative. It's also very similar to Stoicism. Only MU likes to introduce sophistry by inventing new categories ("activity, not thinking") that are actually irrelevant to describing what is at hand.

I would say throw yourself into as many scary situations as you can, do new things everyday. Eventually everything becomes easy...

Also being slightly nihilistic helps, nothing really matters so why get anxious over it...

Again, you're reading uncharitably. Obviously I was referring to the unhealthy type of anxiety. — Agustino

You expressed a complete misunderstanding of what I said, and then went off to criticise that misunderstanding. What I 've been trying to tell you over and over again, is that I don't agree with you that there is an unhealthy type of thinking, and I don't agree that there is an unhealthy type of anxiety. I think that the unhealthy person practises the same type of thinking (rumination, etc.) as a healthy person. I think that the unhealthy person has the same type of anxiety as a healthy person. Consider my analogy with body temperature for example. You wouldn't say that an unhealthy person has a different type of body temperature from the healthy person. It is the same type, the same quality, but the quantity differs.

Right, and guess what, the relevant part of the biology can be changed since the brain has neuroplasticity. — Agustino

Good, we agree.

Yes, it is the activity of thinking in a certain way :-} - not through thought, right... — Agustino

Again, we agree, thinking is an activity. So if thinking is the therapy, then the goal of the therapy is not to put an end to the thinking itself, but to practise it in a more healthy way.

What else is the activity that you mentioned above if not thought? — Agustino

Thought must be initiated. Activity is good for initiating thought, because we need to think about what we're doing. Like a hobby for example. Remember, I didn't criticise your way of dealing with anxiety, you criticised mine. I only replied to your insistence that activity was not a good way of dealing with anxiety.

Having read a book on CBT and keeping in mind the list of cognitive distortions mentioned in it, I have seen no mention in most CBT books, that activity is an essential part of therapy. — Posty McPostface

You ought to write more clearly Posty. You say you read "a book on CBT", then you say "no mention in most CBT books". How would you know about most CBT books if you've only read a book? Have you read about CBT techniques? There must be an interaction between the patient and the therapist in order that there is a technique. This is where activity is involved, in the actual therapy. Even reading the book is an activity. So if you got therapy by reading the book, that was the activity involved. If the patient has to see the therapist, and interact with the therapist, that interaction is the activity involved.

Just that CBT can be done at any time or moment of crisis for an individual. — Posty McPostface

See, you have adopted it as a practise. It is therefore an activity. Agustino would not classify meditation as an activity, desiring instead to create a separation between the meditative activity and the monkey mind activity. One being a good "type" of activity, the other a bad type.

I merely brought up synaptic pruning as a comparative analogy to show how the brain - when a person' cognitive maturity reaches the right age - sheds useless aspects of our developmental learning in order to make it more open and sophisticated for adulthood; so when we reach this transcendence and begin to think as an autonomous agent, we shed or prune our reliance to conform to society or those close or around us, removing toxic people from our life, having the courage to experience the things that we want and not what others want from us. We shed those things in order to start improving our own language and identification to the external world. — TimeLine

I agree.

You know, while Jung did have rather ambiguous theories, I am compelled to believe that our subconscious does speak to us in a language that we understand and does this through stories. — TimeLine

I would say that it is questionable how much of this we actually "understand", and that is cause for anxiety. The human body has many systems which appear to be quite mechanical. One part of the body "understands" another part through these systems. But this is not the same as conscious understanding. So if we turn conscious understanding inward, in an attempt to understand the stories which the subconscious is telling us, we get stymied because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because it is a completely different system of communication from what we use to communicate with each other.

Remember what I said about real unity? Within each of us there is a real unity, which is not duplicated between us. This makes the communication between us inauthentic compared to the communication within us. The inauthenticity is built in, inherent within the languages. So when we turn inward there is an incompatibility between the language within, and the outward language, which makes understanding of the inner impossible from the perspective of the outer. The subconscious cannot be understood by the conscious.

This is expressed by Wittgenstein's private language argument. If there is a private language, it cannot in principle, be understood from the perspective of a public language. If we assume that there is a private language, then we must conclude that it cannot be understood via the public languages. The only resolution, to establish compatibility and "understanding" between inner and outer, is to allow the inner to take control of the outer, twisting and shaping the outer in an attempt to forge authenticity.

Heidegger does not speak of overcoming death - in the sense of 'death' being one actually dying physically - but rather overcoming the death of this given identity; as mentioned, when we are young, we are given the translations of our perceptions and experiences by others, that they tell us how to think and behave and we form our reality based on these given themes, but when our brains reach that cognitive maturity, it begins to translate these experiences autonomously only we do not understand or cannot articulate what they mean since we are brand-new at the experience. We suddenly become conscious that we are shifting away from that given identity or that given language that we use to translate reality and that is frightening, it is like everything that you are is untrue or false. — TimeLine

This would be that process. We learn the outer when we are young, the experiences of others. As we mature, like you describe, the inner as 'the brain" is working on these, translating it into the inner. That's the only possible way of understanding, because the outer cannot translate the inner.

There is something important missed here though, and that is that we are born with only the inner language. So all of our learning from others, as children, can only proceed to the extent that the inner may translate the outer. This, "being born with" is like a preconditioning, to accept the identity which will be given to us.

This is the 'angst' this moving away from what we thought was reality or the truth and most are unsuccessful in reaching that level of autonomy; they often retreat back to conforming, back to doing what others tell them whether it is friends or parents or partners, and with capitalism and the social media or network, it is becoming easier and easier for people to think that they are autonomous or independent, tricking themselves and others alike, this idea that they are individuals when they blindly move in masses. Changing your hair colour or wearing different clothes does not make you different. As we have the capacity to be self-aware, we have the capacity to recognise our separateness and this detatchment is the very anxiety that overcomes us. — TimeLine

I think that the way our society is now structured, we are taught that the authentic is the external. Then, the internal is incomprehensible to the external, as described above. This results in a denial of the reality of the internal voice. So we get lost in this external world with no capacity to understand ourselves. Anxiety is the internal voice reminding us of what is really the case. The only way to proceed is to maintain the natural balance which is to allow the inner voice to keep control over translation of the outer. To invert this, and attempt to control the "unruly mind" (as Augustino says) is to induce confusion.

You wouldn't say that an unhealthy person has a different type of body temperature from the healthy person. It is the same type, the same quality, but the quantity differs. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, I can grant that. What does that change though?

So if thinking is the therapy, then the goal of the therapy is not to put an end to the thinking itself, but to practise it in a more healthy way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure.

Thought must be initiated. Activity is good for initiating thought, because we need to think about what we're doing. Like a hobby for example. Remember, I didn't criticise your way of dealing with anxiety, you criticised mine. I only replied to your insistence that activity was not a good way of dealing with anxiety. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why can't thought be initiated by directing our attention towards a problem we want to think about?

See, you have adopted it as a practise. It is therefore an activity. Agustino would not classify meditation as an activity, desiring instead to create a separation between the meditative activity and the monkey mind activity. One being a good "type" of activity, the other a bad type. — Metaphysician Undercover

According to your usage of the term, pretty much ANYTHING one does is an "activity" - the term becomes meaningless since even not doing anything is an activity.

Why can't thought be initiated by directing our attention towards a problem we want to think about? — Agustino

The question I think is what attracts one's attention. The way you ask the question, the issue of why do you want to think about this particular problem, is left open. And that might be an issue of mental health. If there is a problem which you want to think about, then your attention is already directed in that way. That thing interests you, and I need to know, why does that interest you. If there is something which you want to direct your attention toward, then there is a reason why you want to direct your attention in that way. That thing, which provides the reason why you want to direct your attention in that way is the thing which interests you.

This is the principle which Aristotle outlines in his Nicomachean Ethics, the good, the end, that for the sake of which. You have an interest in that particular problem, and therefore your attention is directed in that particular way, because you apprehend some good to be obtained. But that good is wanted for the sake of a further good, and so on. To assume an infinite regress of goods would not provide a proper end, so he posits "happiness" as the thing which is desired for the sake of itself, the ultimate good. If one adopts that principle, then the desire for happiness is what directs one's attention. So if you ask why do you want to direct your attention toward a particular problem, the answer is because it is through some means, conducive to your happiness. If it is not conducive to your happiness, then do not direct your attention toward that particular problem.

According to your usage of the term, pretty much ANYTHING one does is an "activity" - the term becomes meaningless since even not doing anything is an activity. — Agustino

Right, anything one does is an activity. Why do you find this to be a problem? No matter what one is doing, it requires the same sort of mental procedure. We determine our goals, or ends, then determine the means toward those ends, and proceed. As we proceed, we must deal with all the difficulties, obstacles which confront us, the problems on the way, and adjust the means, and sometimes even the goals, along the way, accordingly. Any instance of doing anything follows the same basic pattern, such that anytime we are doing anything we are engaged in the same sort of mental activity. It is a simple process of getting something accomplished. And, if the thing to be accomplished is desired to be accomplished because it has been determined as conducive toward one's happiness, then there is a joy and satisfaction which accompanies the accomplishment.

Remember what I said about real unity? Within each of us there is a real unity, which is not duplicated between us. This makes the communication between us inauthentic compared to the communication within us. The inauthenticity is built in, inherent within the languages. So when we turn inward there is an incompatibility between the language within, and the outward language, which makes understanding of the inner impossible from the perspective of the outer. The subconscious cannot be understood by the conscious. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is just the best, however I believe that it may be accessible, only not completely, like a puzzle that you need to work through because if there appears to be that 'alarm bell' feeling we get from anxiety -which is our subconscious telling us that something is wrong - in order to have that, it would need linguistic capacity, there needs to be some meaning to that experience that it merely cannot articulate consciously because there is a lack of understanding. When you teach a child that behaving someway is wrong, they often do not understand at conscious level why it is wrong, but this belief retreats into that subconscious domain as though the voice of this parent remains embedded and echoes doubts that we feel when we encounter similar experiences.

Only our instinctual drives remain completely unconscious, completely without any thought and really, as humans who are capable of identifying or becoming self-aware, consciousness is really the medium or tool that attempts to manage our instinctual drives with our social or moral development that we obtain for the external world.



It is experience that is not yet understood but considering that this moral development is within us, it is about raising it to the surface, to explain it at conscious level. This is a process embedded into the structure of our cognitive system, hence why Kant' formula that we as rational agents are bound by moral law makes perfect sense. We begin to deliberate a philosophical process using our own will or consciousness to begin formulating our own moral laws; which is, basically, adopting our own interpretation of the external world and our experience with it rather than listening to that echo telling us what to think and how to behave.

There is something important missed here though, and that is that we are born with only the inner language. So all of our learning from others, as children, can only proceed to the extent that the inner may translate the outer. This, "being born with" is like a preconditioning, to accept the identity which will be given to us. — Metaphysician Undercover

We are not born with a language, we learn it socially but that the brain itself is a tool, an instrument that - upon maturation - is enabled with the capacity to become self-aware, to identify and calculate experience autonomously but through this very learning or determinism. Again, free-will and determinism is not mutually exclusive but in actually rather compatible, and the only problem is that this develops later and the experience of this 'self-awareness' and therefore this distinct separateness from our environment and the identity that we had formed through it is extremely frightening. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

I am confident that there may be a way in which that transition could be eased with adequate support, but unfortunately society and religion and other institutions seem to do everything in their power to ensure you avoid this independent voice. It equates to libertarianism, vice, even evil and all that really is just a way to frighten you to submit.

I do, however, believe that some people are born with particular - or unique - personality traits, certain attributes that you could say is very individual to that character and not a learned behaviour. I have seen it in some toddlers, and these traits could be genetic.

Well, unenlightened posted a while ago about Open Dialogue in regards to more serious disorders like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. — Posty McPostface

I read a little bit about it when UN posted that thread, not sure what to say though. I haven't seen a theoretical explanation for how it actually works. Sure, you have open, transparent dialogue with the patient, and you give the patient a driving role in deciding which direction he or she wants to go in. You also involve the family. That's what a lot of GOOD therapists do anyway. I don't think that, in and of itself, is sufficient. Those people in Finland may be keeping some things secret. I don't see how doing just that is enough to solve the problems.

If there is something which you want to direct your attention toward, then there is a reason why you want to direct your attention in that way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, there are two cases you could be referring to here given the context. The person who suffers from anxiety will direct their attention either to the thoughts that cause the anxiety itself, since they want that anxiety to stop, as it is preventing them from fully living their life. OR - they are directing their attention towards seeking a way to prevent whatever bad thing they are anxious about. So those are the two possible reasons.

This is the principle which Aristotle outlines in his Nicomachean Ethics, the good, the end, that for the sake of which. You have an interest in that particular problem, and therefore your attention is directed in that particular way, because you apprehend some good to be obtained. But that good is wanted for the sake of a further good, and so on. To assume an infinite regress of goods would not provide a proper end, so he posits "happiness" as the thing which is desired for the sake of itself, the ultimate good. If one adopts that principle, then the desire for happiness is what directs one's attention. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, I agree with this.

So if you ask why do you want to direct your attention toward a particular problem, the answer is because it is through some means, conducive to your happiness. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree. The miser directs his attention to the hoarding of money because he believes that hoarding money will be conducive to his happiness - NOT because it really is conducive to his happinesss.

Any instance of doing anything follows the same basic pattern, such that anytime we are doing anything we are engaged in the same sort of mental activity. It is a simple process of getting something accomplished. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, and mindfulness and meditation actually trains this process. In mindfulness your goal is precisely to train your attention. You are supposed to focus on the breath, and maintain full awareness of it. And everytime your mind drifts to something else, and you become aware of it, then you must drop that thing and refocus on the breath. This process of choosing a goal, and then approaching it and not being distracted, this needs you to train your faculty of attention.

And, if the thing to be accomplished is desired to be accomplished because it has been determined as conducive toward one's happiness, then there is a joy and satisfaction which accompanies the accomplishment. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not necessarily - joy and satisfaction will only come if that thing is really conducive towards one's happiness, not just if it has so been determined.

This is just the best, however I believe that it may be accessible, only not completely, like a puzzle that you need to work through because if there appears to be that 'alarm bell' feeling we get from anxiety -which is our subconscious telling us that something is wrong - in order to have that, it would need linguistic capacity, there needs to be some meaning to that experience that it merely cannot articulate consciously because there is a lack of understanding. — TimeLine

I don't know about that. It may not be wise to attempt with the conscious mind to understand what the subconscious is doing. This puzzle might be impossible to solve, causing increased anxiety and frustrated thinking. If it is the subconscious which must "understand" the conscious, as I suggested, then we have to take a different approach. You know how some people argue that ultimately the subconscious passions control the conscious mind, and not vise versa? If this is the case, then the conscious mind might be able to communicate to the subconscious through this avenue. It would not be a case of trying to understand the subconscious with the conscious, but a case of trying to get the subconscious to understand the conscious. This would be saying something to the subconscious which it could understand.

When you teach a child that behaving someway is wrong, they often do not understand at conscious level why it is wrong, but this belief retreats into that subconscious domain as though the voice of this parent remains embedded and echoes doubts that we feel when we encounter similar experiences. — TimeLine

So this would be what happens with childhood learning. The subconscious is listening to, and in a way, communicating with the conscious, but the communication is sort of one way. The subconscious "understands" what the conscious mind gives it, receiving and remembering, but the conscious mind doesn't understand anything that is going on in the subconscious.

Only our instinctual drives remain completely unconscious, completely without any thought and really, as humans who are capable of identifying or becoming self-aware, consciousness is really the medium or tool that attempts to manage our instinctual drives with our social or moral development that we obtain for the external world. — TimeLine

I don't think that the conscious mind can ever really control the subconscious, because the subconscious is really the higher level. The aspect which we call "free", in "free will" is very deeply seated, so the subconscious itself is free, and will not necessarily follow the conscious mind's attempts to control it. So the subconscious listens, and to an extent understands the conscious, but it will not necessarily obey. We can learn from the history of teaching, and morality, that certain principles appeal to the subconscious, and these are readily accepted. In society, through communion, we use the conscious mind of other individuals to get through to, and affect the higher levels of those others, which are the subconscious, and in this way we can, to some extent manage the instinctual drives of others (education). Our own instinctual drives having been managed in a similar way by our teachers. But we're really very limited in what will be accepted by the subconscious, and this leads me to believe that the subconscious is really very narrowly focused. Trying to go outside these limits is problem causing.

It is experience that is not yet understood but considering that this moral development is within us, it is about raising it to the surface, to explain it at conscious level. — TimeLine

Again, I'm afraid this might be a backward approach. I really do not think that we can bring the deep levels (subconscious) to the surface (conscious). Our only approach may be to get the deep level to accept what the surface level has to offer. This means that whatever we offer to the subconscious, from the conscious mind, it has to be appealing, or else it will be rejected and the conscious mind will be left frustrated.

I am confident that there may be a way in which that transition could be eased with adequate support, but unfortunately society and religion and other institutions seem to do everything in their power to ensure you avoid this independent voice. — TimeLine

I think there is a degree of understanding of the inner voice which lies behind these institutions. But from your perspective, my perspective, and everyone else's perspectives, these principles of the institutions are always the "other". They use learned techniques to get through to the inner voice to teach and train it in the ways that have been deemed good by conscious thought. The subconscious might be quite focused, as I said above, in relation to infinite possibilities, but that doesn't mean that it is anywhere near as focused as the conscious mind would like it to be. So we keep working to focus the subconscious of others, and ourselves, through conscious reasoning. But even the reasoning must be conditioned with principles which are acceptable to the subconscious or else the effort is futile.

I disagree. The miser directs his attention to the hoarding of money because he believes that hoarding money will be conducive to his happiness - NOT because it really is conducive to his happinesss. — Agustino

Yes of course, it's all belief. Notice that I said if we "assume" happiness as the desired end. Many people will not even take the time to figure their own priorities, or what is important for them to get from life. These people would not make choices conducive to happiness, nor even choices which they believe are conducive to happiness, because they haven't taken the time to determine that happiness is what they actually want from life. And even if they do determine some ultimate goals like happiness, they seldom would take the time to think about each of the activities which they are engaged in, to determine how these activities would, if they even do, relate to that ultimate goal

Sure, and mindfulness and meditation actually trains this process. In mindfulness your goal is precisely to train your attention. You are supposed to focus on the breath, and maintain full awareness of it. And everytime your mind drifts to something else, and you become aware of it, then you must drop that thing and refocus on the breath. This process of choosing a goal, and then approaching it and not being distracted, this needs you to train your faculty of attention. — Agustino

I agree.

Not necessarily - joy and satisfaction will only come if that thing is really conducive towards one's happiness, not just if it has so been determined. — Agustino

There will be an immediate joy from accomplishing what one sets out to accomplish. This in itself is a cause of joy. If the thing accomplished is not really conducive towards one's ultimate goals, in this case happiness, then a disappointment or other bad feelings could follow when realization sets in.

So this would be what happens with childhood learning. The subconscious is listening to, and in a way, communicating with the conscious, but the communication is sort of one way. The subconscious "understands" what the conscious mind gives it, receiving and remembering, but the conscious mind doesn't understand anything that is going on in the subconscious. — Metaphysician Undercover

I knew this guy who followed his girlfriend and copied her - she would do something, he would do something - but then it was almost like he realised he was copying her and he would retract or stop, as though recognising that he should not follow her or even that he was following someone unworthy, back and forth like that repeatedly over the years. I knew he had attachment issues and I assume that this was formed from an unreliable and yet dominating mother, but whatever the case is he was having a battle in himself that he literally was completely undecided as to who he was. He followed and copied his girlfriend before sharply changing to doing what he felt was right, ossiclating between different behaviours and feeling anxious almost all the time that he resorted to secretive behaviour, playing games, aggressive. He refused to listen to me, consistently misunderstood what I was attempting to say to help him when I tried to get him to understand his anxiety that I gave up on him because it is exactly as you say, the subconscious "understands" what the conscious mind gives it. But, what if what it is given is irrational?

Everything about who we are is dependent on the quality and capacity to reason adequately and fear stands as an obstacle only because of its ability to influence irrational thoughts. To improve is really about ameliorating our knowledge, advancing our experience and ultimately broadening our language and this enables us with the capacity to interpret our past experiences and relate it to our currents beliefs or opinions, to understand the difference between a rational and irrational opinion, and thus form a stronger relationship with our intuitive system. "Since it is reason which shapes and regulates all other things, it ought not itself to be left in disorder."

Everything about who we are is also dependent on the quality of our relationships and connections with others, but particularly during developmental stages when our brains and personalities are beginning to form. Children can also experience anxiety, despite their brains not being fully developed; the anxiety can be caused by a poor caregiver - such as a dominating mother or an absent father - but in particular emotional distance or a lack of responsiveness to the needs of the child can cause significant barriers in the harmonious development of their personality. I knew a girl who had a very dominating mother and although she was in her mid-twenties, even a conversation about her moving into an independent lifestyle was simply unfathomable and evoked such irrational fear in her that one would think her life was threatened. There was nothing of the sort, but her mother's behaviour had taught her to believe that disobeying would be "bad" and made her respond to the suggestion with intense anxiety as though I were "bad" for suggesting it.

When we reach a level of cognitive maturity, we have the capacity to reason and rationalise our responses and so it is up to her to find the courage to analyse her responses objectively and that takes knowledge and experience so that she has the capacity to identify those past experiences and connect them to her responses. Many people resort to other sources to articulate their identity, such as new ageism, religion or dogma, even some areas of metaphysics and sometimes even other people, functioning as a way to avoid this responsibility of beginning this process to rationalise the past. That is a different anxiety, this fear to think independently and there is an element of our learning but also it is embedded into our genes. We respond negatively to the concept of our separateness from others because our attachment to others is comforting; our brains seek the pleasure of this attachment and avoid this displeasure that we are separate, individual and thus alone.

This same anxiety can be seen in children who have attachment issues and other demonstrably negative behavioural traits caused by difficulties to connect to caregivers (the result of poor parenting for instance) such as feeling clingy or needy, desperate, suspicious, emotionally insensitive, all of which are merely responses that form during this pivotal time during childhood. When parents or guardians oscillate between different behaviours or say when there is a divorce or separation, such unreliability confuses and effects the child that they form irrational attachments and these behavioural responses continues through to adulthood. In addition, we are also socially and culturally often told that we are "bad" if we believe our caregivers to be wrong in someway and so we automatically assume some infallibility, but a rational approach in adulthood is to realise that our parents are just human and that we are now grown up and do not need to emotionally rely on them. That would mean accepting and transforming the entire structure of your mode of existence, hence the difficulty.

Everything about who we are is dependent on the quality and capacity to reason adequately and fear stands as an obstacle only because of its ability to influence irrational thoughts. — TimeLine

I think we understand each other sufficiently, and maybe agree on some key points enough, that I could probably attempt another approach to the topic of fear.

We are talking about the type of fear which comes from the subconscious, and is irrational. The conscious mind attempts to quell the fear, perceiving it as irrational. However, the subconsciously derived fear does not relinquish. such that we might say that the subconscious is "unruly" in relation to the attempts of the conscious mind to subdue the irrational fear. When attempts to control the fear in this way are unsuccessful, the inclination for the subject is to attempt to understand the subconscious, and understand the reasons for the fear. However, as discussed, and I think we agree, there is no avenue here. The conscious mind is incapable of understanding the subconscious, and these attempts would only lead to frustration.

So we must adhere to the principle that the subconscious needs to "listen" to the conscious, and not vise versa. If we look back at the childhood learning process, we can see that this is what occurs. The child takes things in, learned from others, through the conscious mind, and the subconscious "listens", and accepts what the conscious mind gives it. By the principle of freedom though, which underlies all these activities, there is no necessity that the subconscious "listen", So we can conclude that the subconscious only "listens" to the conscious mind if it has a certain disposition, which makes it want to "listen". As discussed, we can't really describe the activities of the subconscious with words like I am doing here, because it's actions are beyond those of the conscious mind which we apprehend with words. and that's why I put "listen" in quotations. But this is where metaphors serve us, so I'll say that it's like listening, metaphorically. And the disposition which the subconscious must have, in order that it "listens" to the conscious mind, is like "respect", or "trust". So I'll refer to this as a disposition of respect, metaphorically. The subconscious has respect for the conscious, and allows itself to be told how to behave.

Now we might say that principally this respect is innate, instinctual, genetic. We are born with this disposition in which the subconscious has respect for the conscious, and this is what allows us to learn through the medium of the conscious mind. However, if we look at very early childhood, infancy or babyhood, we might find a period of time where the interaction between the conscious mind and the subconscious, has the conscious mind focused more on culturing this respect, rather than actually trying to tell the subconscious anything. Do you see what I mean? It is necessary that the subconscious has a very healthy respect for the conscious, in order that the child can learn through the conscious mind, so this respect must ne nurtured. At this early time the conscious mind probably isn't even aware of needing to tell the subconscious anything, it knows no words, so it's entire relationship with the subconscious is one of enhancing this respect. Here we find the importance of the unconditional love of the caregiver. The baby's subconscious receives, and benefits from the love given by the caregiver, through the medium of the baby's consciousness. This loving nurtures and enhances the naturally existing respect which the subconscious has for the conscious.

Back to the irrational fear now. If we have an adolescent, or even an adult, in the condition where this respect is compromised, as I believe is the case with irrational fear which the conscious mind cannot quell, then there could be a number of reasons for this problem. First, we might consider that the innate respect, the biological, genetically produced condition might be compromised by some physiological disorder. Next, we might consider that the nurtured, enhanced respect, has been for some reason compromised. The person, as a baby might not have received the required love, or the love might not have been true and unconditional, so as to produce "suspicions", etc.. Furthermore, it's possible that a traumatic experience later in life might even be enough to compromise the respect which previously existed.

Notice that I said if we "assume" happiness as the desired end. Many people will not even take the time to figure their own priorities, or what is important for them to get from life. These people would not make choices conducive to happiness, nor even choices which they believe are conducive to happiness, because they haven't taken the time to determine that happiness is what they actually want from life. And even if they do determine some ultimate goals like happiness, they seldom would take the time to think about each of the activities which they are engaged in, to determine how these activities would, if they even do, relate to that ultimate goal — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmmm I disagree with your interpretation of Aristotle here. In my view, Aristotle is making a meta-ethical claim, that ALL people desire and seek after happiness. Even a criminal, for example, commits the crimes he does with the view that they will be conducive to his happiness. Of course, the criminal would be mistaken, but it doesn't change the fact that from his perspective, he is pursuing happiness. He is wrong either about (1) what happiness consists of, or (2) the means of acquiring it.

There will be an immediate joy from accomplishing what one sets out to accomplish. This in itself is a cause of joy. If the thing accomplished is not really conducive towards one's ultimate goals, in this case happiness, then a disappointment or other bad feelings could follow when realization sets in. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, yes, I see what you mean.

I don't know about that. It may not be wise to attempt with the conscious mind to understand what the subconscious is doing. This puzzle might be impossible to solve, causing increased anxiety and frustrated thinking. If it is the subconscious which must "understand" the conscious, as I suggested, then we have to take a different approach. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you're taking quite a Platonic approach here, with the conscious being the rational aspect of the soul (which is also the "least numerous" in Plato's analogy with the perfect community), and with the subconscious being the appetitive part of the soul, which is the "most numerous". And reason's job is to "educate" the subconscious, and the subconscious must realise that reason aims at the good of all three parts, and hence will willingly obey.

However, there's also the Stoic approach which states that the rational part retains full control, since nothing gets done without the assent of the rational part. For example, regardless of how afraid or angry you feel, you must still assent, with your reason, to those feelings, in order to act according to them. So per this reading, it doesn't matter how the subconscious makes you feel - what matters is just how you exercise your reason.

However, as discussed, and I think we agree, there is no avenue here. The conscious mind is incapable of understanding the subconscious, and these attempts would only lead to frustration. — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed, no clear avenue, but there is a way to reach that 'core' problem or to find out the root cause of those subconscious fears because they mostly exist through past experiences and it is about accessing that repository of memories and reasoning or calculating a number of possible factors that network the formation of this negative feeling. For instance, that girl has irrational fears of leaving home and venturing into independence because of a dominating mother and a normalisation of her behaviour culturally, but she is unaware of that consciously and she clearly ensures or fights any possible access to the truth by getting upset at those who bring it up and pushing them away.

Even so, the avenue remains unclear aside from the fact that we need to find the courage to stop deceiving ourselves, such as forgiving our parents and objectively recognising that they are human beings with flaws and that we need to take responsibility for our own life, ascertaining potential genetic affiliations and predispositions, understanding nutrition, sleep and how the brain works etc &c. For me, the sensation of anxiety all but disappeared the moment I stopped deceiving myself and the transformation was long and very painful. It mostly involved removing toxic people from my life and trying to resolve what being 'alone' actually meant by starting a clean slate. It took years of continuous errors, deliberations, a hefty amount of tears and even existentially wanting to just give up and shut down despite the protestations of reason. I am quite literally at peace and very happy within now, but the process was tough.

There are two types of fear as mentioned; that learned or epistemic fear because of our social environment and this is subconscious, and then the evolutionary, the one in the brain that desires pleasure and seeks to avoid pain and this instinctual prompt is without consciousness so completely unconscious; when we feel anxiety from something we learnt from our social environment, despite reason telling us it is irrational or silly, our brains instinctually mark the experience as a 'danger' or bad and seeks to immediately alleviate the feeling, sometimes even amplifying the anxiety as though attempting to clarify that it is really bad and needs to end. That prompts us to delude ourselves or escape from the feelings - even within mindfulness or new ageism - some people even continue living in a miserable relationship, or having toxic people in their life to stop them from facing the 'quiet' of their own mind. The conflict is really between the instinctual and the learned.

But this is where metaphors serve us, so I'll say that it's like listening, metaphorically. And the disposition which the subconscious must have, in order that it "listens" to the conscious mind, is like "respect", or "trust". So I'll refer to this as a disposition of respect, metaphorically. The subconscious has respect for the conscious, and allows itself to be told how to behave. — Metaphysician Undercover

If language - as in reason or rational thought - is not serving us to articulate experience, stories seem to work as that next level of communication, like semiotics in that it provides symbolic connections between our experiences in a fictional story. This is why we dream and perhaps even the purpose of our imagination, that intuitive realm of communication. Sometimes (not all the time) our dreams are showing us those subjective, underlying problems and desires but the actual dream itself is completely fantastical and makes no sense until you attempt to interpret it. This is why writing your own story or painting or other creative arts helps us explain those deeper behavioural feelings as much as parables or allegories can explain underlying moral concepts without actually detailing what.

Here we find the importance of the unconditional love of the caregiver. The baby's subconscious receives, and benefits from the love given by the caregiver, through the medium of the baby's consciousness. This loving nurtures and enhances the naturally existing respect which the subconscious has for the conscious. — Metaphysician Undercover

(Y) Even just the warmth of presence, to listen, to play, to read and all this nurtures the child to develop correctly and makes the process of transcendence much more smoother. A human being requires love to be full functional.

Hmmm I disagree with your interpretation of Aristotle here. In my view, Aristotle is making a meta-ethical claim, that ALL people desire and seek after happiness. Even a criminal, for example, commits the crimes he does with the view that they will be conducive to his happiness. Of course, the criminal would be mistaken, but it doesn't change the fact that from his perspective, he is pursuing happiness. He is wrong either about (1) what happiness consists of, or (2) the means of acquiring it. — Agustino

Though it was not a formalized concept at his time Aristotle clearly believed in free will, as is evident from his discussion of the potential for future acts which must be decided upon. Your claim, that Aristotle believed all people desire and seek happiness is inconsistent with free will. It implies a necessary inclination toward happiness. He actually proposed "happiness" as something desired for the sake of itself, self-sufficient, and that this is self-evident. As a self-evident truth it is only self-evident to those who apprehend and comprehend it. So for those individuals who do not apprehend, and comprehend, with their conscious minds, that happiness is such an end, they will not desire it.

However, there's also the Stoic approach which states that the rational part retains full control, since nothing gets done without the assent of the rational part. For example, regardless of how afraid or angry you feel, you must still assent, with your reason, to those feelings, in order to act according to them. — Agustino

Remember, I consider thinking as an act. This is described by Aristotle when we says that the contemplative life is the highest virtue, virtue being the property of an act. So if an individual has irrational fear, and is inclined toward thinking about the thing feared, without the assent of the rational mind, then this person is acting according to the irrational fear. Since this is often the case, then it is very clear that the rational, conscious mind does not maintain full control over the subconscious. The conscious is clearly influenced by the subconscious to do something irrational, to think about something which it is irrational to think about.

Indeed, no clear avenue, but there is a way to reach that 'core' problem or to find out the root cause of those subconscious fears because they mostly exist through past experiences and it is about accessing that repository of memories and reasoning or calculating a number of possible factors that network the formation of this negative feeling. For instance, that girl has irrational fears of leaving home and venturing into independence because of a dominating mother and a normalisation of her behaviour culturally, but she is unaware of that consciously and she clearly ensures or fights any possible access to the truth by getting upset at those who bring it up and pushing them away. — TimeLine

I have to disagree with you on this point. I think that there is no way to reach the cause of those irrational fears and anxiety from the conscious mind. You suggest that one could proceed on the basis of examining possibilities. This would be like trial and error. However, in trial and error by the conscious mind, there must be a clearly defined "success", such that we would know when the trial has success. In this case, we'd examine all sorts of possibilities with no way of knowing which is the correct one. Furthermore, it is likely that each of the possibilities contributes its own bit toward compounding the problem. So it appears to me, like there are no parameters for judging "success", in determining which of the possibilities is the correct one. Then there is no way of knowing whether any such understanding of the subconscious by the conscious is a correct one.

Because of this perspective, I think that this approach would only contribute to the problem. You mentioned that resolution of the problem requires that one stops deceiving oneself. I think that this belief, that one can get to the cause of the unruly subconscious, by examining one's experiences with the conscious mind, is a case of self-deception. The problem is that consciousness starts to develop when the child is a baby. The first stage in this development would be the development of the "respect" for the conscious mind, by the subconscious. The subconscious must develop this respect in order that it would allow that the conscious mind develops at all. So the relationship between the subconscious and the conscious, the respect which is necessarily there, is a property of the subconscious. No matter how the conscious mind pokes away at this relationship, trying to understand it, it only has a very narrow perspective, and cannot see the vast amount of factors which would influence the subconscious in developing and maintaining this respect.

If language - as in reason or rational thought - is not serving us to articulate experience, stories seem to work as that next level of communication, like semiotics in that it provides symbolic connections between our experiences in a fictional story. This is why we dream and perhaps even the purpose of our imagination, that intuitive realm of communication. Sometimes (not all the time) our dreams are showing us those subjective, underlying problems and desires but the actual dream itself is completely fantastical and makes no sense until you attempt to interpret it. This is why writing your own story or painting or other creative arts helps us explain those deeper behavioural feelings as much as parables or allegories can explain underlying moral concepts without actually detailing what. — TimeLine

It's not that language doesn't serve us in articulating our experience, it does serve us to articulate our conscious experience, but it doesn't serve us to articulate our subconscious experience. What we might do, for example, is produce symbols of expression, artistic forms, etc.. But these are expressions from our conscious mind, outward toward other conscious minds, which are meant to express feelings from the subconscious. When we turn inward with the conscious mind, toward the subconscious, we would have to determine, and translate the symbols of the subconscious, in order to truly understand it. We don't do this though, because these symbols are way out of reach down in the atomic, or molecular level. So we analyze the feelings, memories, and dreams, as how the subconscious appears to the conscious, with the words and symbols of the conscious mind. We like to think that these metaphors and artistic expressions are symbols of the subconscious, but they are really symbols from these lower levels of the conscious mind. This does not give us what is needed to truly understand. To truly understand it is required to determine how the conscious appears to the subconscious, not how the subconscious appears to the conscious.

Consider for an analogy, that the subconscious is a completely different person from the conscious. What we want to do is to determine why this person behaves like it does. To do this we have to get into the person's mind, determine the person's intentions. Immediately we're hit with the problem, what type of a mind does the subconscious have, what type of intentions does it have. We must afford it some form of intention because it can freely choose whether to obey or disobey the conscious. It would obey if there is consistency between what it wants and what the conscious mind wants. But if there is inconsistency, it would disobey, just like a person would disobey the laws if there is inconsistency between what the person wants and what the laws want.

Even just the warmth of presence, to listen, to play, to read and all this nurtures the child to develop correctly and makes the process of transcendence much more smoother. A human being requires love to be full functional. — TimeLine

I'm glad you agree. I think that the importance of true love is often underestimated. It is what is required to create that very special relationship between the subconscious and the conscious, as the conscious mind develops. Even if it has been missed in the early stages of development, it can be useful in later stages of life, but with probably less effectiveness.

Remember, I consider thinking as an act. This is described by Aristotle when we says that the contemplative life is the highest virtue, virtue being the property of an act. So if an individual has irrational fear, and is inclined toward thinking about the thing feared, without the assent of the rational mind, then this person is acting according to the irrational fear. Since this is often the case, then it is very clear that the rational, conscious mind does not maintain full control over the subconscious. The conscious is clearly influenced by the subconscious to do something irrational, to think about something which it is irrational to think about. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think your notions here are mistaken. Only what is under my control can be conceptualised as my action. If the action isn't under my control, is it really mine?

If I have intrusive thoughts which are presented to my mind without me directing my attention towards them, then these are clearly not "mine". They are something irrational that intrudes upon my mind, and I am free to assent or withhold my assent from them. So an intrusive thought isn't an action that I undertake, but rather something that happens to me. It's the same way that seeing something is only my action if I freely do it, but if someone forces my eyes to stay open and see something, then it's not my action.

There are also other important differences here that may be related that I quote from another thread:

In terms of ethics, certainly in a practical way, I often side with the Stoics more than with Aristotle or Plato for that matter. The reason for this is that Plato/Aristotle are elitist - the "good life" isn't open to everyone, regardless of their circumstances. Only a select few, who are blessed by the gods and are given favourable winds, only they can reach up to the ideal of the good life. Whereas Stoicism works regardless of circumstance - if you are a slave, or if you are the Emperor.

Also, Stoicism seems to teach more of what it actually takes to be successful at living life - even at acquiring the preferred indifferents (as the Stoics call them). Whereas Plato/Aristotle leaves you in a kind of rut if, say, you are living in Syria.

Also the moral psychology of the Platonists, with the tripartite soul may get the power of reason in determining actions wrongly. Reason is the weakest part of the soul, and must educate the other two parts to obey, because it is in their best interest to do so. The stoics say that this doesn't matter, since reason ultimately has the final say in assenting to impressions or not. — Agustino

If I have intrusive thoughts which are presented to my mind without me directing my attention towards them, then these are clearly not "mine". — Agustino

This is nonsense, and contradictory. "I have intrusive thoughts" implies necessarily, through the use of "I have", that the thoughts are yours. To go on and claim that they are not yours is contradictory. Trying to disassociate yourself from your irrational or immoral thoughts, as if the thoughts were not yours, does not absolve you from responsibility for these thoughts.

So an intrusive thought isn't an action that I undertake, but rather something that happens to me. — Agustino

No, it is quite clearly something you are doing, you are thinking. It is a completely inaccurate description to say that this is "something that happens to me". Even sensing is not something which happens to me, it is something that I do. You are very clearly taking an unrealistic approach here, with an extremely unrealistic description.

"I have intrusive thoughts" implies necessarily, through the use of "I have", that the thoughts are yours. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, they are mine by virtue of occuring in my mind, just as my perception of a tree is mine by virtue of the fact that the tree is in my visual field. They are not mine in the sense that I have freely chosen to have them. Because I have not freely chosen to have them, I cannot be morally responsible for them.

This is nonsense, and contradictory. "I have intrusive thoughts" implies necessarily, through the use of "I have", that the thoughts are yours. To go on and claim that they are not yours is contradictory — Metaphysician Undercover

The argument here is a sophism. They are mine in one sense, and not mine in another. It is your failure to make the necessary distinctions there.

Trying to disassociate yourself from your irrational or immoral thoughts, as if the thoughts were not yours, does not absolve you from responsibility for these thoughts. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is very wrong. How can you be responsible for things that are not within your control?! Am I responsible for the thunderbolt outside?

And you are aware that relatively many people suffer of intrusive thoughts and associated disorders (like anxiety, OCD, etc.). Do you reckon that these people are morally responsible for their thoughts? That is almost a grotesque thing to say, that can bring a lot of suffering to such a person. Typically people who suffer of those thoughts do not want to have them, and are ashamed of them - they usually feel guilty about having such thoughts anyways, and part of the process of therapy in their cases is to understand that having those thoughts or not isn't within their control, they are under no compulsion to act on them, and they are just thoughts which happen to them - it doesn't mean they are immoral or sinful.

No, it is quite clearly something you are doing, you are thinking. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope, because I don't want to think, it just happens by itself.

Even sensing is not something which happens to me, it is something that I do. You are very clearly taking an unrealistic approach here, with an extremely unrealistic description. — Metaphysician Undercover

How is sensing something you do? Can you stop your ears from hearing?

u suggest that one could proceed on the basis of examining possibilities. This would be like trial and error. However, in trial and error by the conscious mind, there must be a clearly defined "success", such that we would know when the trial has success. In this case, we'd examine all sorts of possibilities with no way of knowing which is the correct one. Furthermore, it is likely that each of the possibilities contributes its own bit toward compounding the problem. So it appears to me, like there are no parameters for judging "success", in determining which of the possibilities is the correct one. Then there is no way of knowing whether any such understanding of the subconscious by the conscious is a correct one. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I completely agree but what I am attempting to convey is that the process itself, of being able to articulate and examine their past and memories, to be able to understand causal connections particularly that of biological - including health and sleep - as well as genetic, of attempting to analyse and ascertain the authenticity of their perceptions, all this is the process that leads one toward the successful and indeed permanent alleviation of such anxiety.

This is because we begin to understand ourselves as an autonomous agent with better clarity and we begin to mature the existential properties that reduce ambiguous mental states, enabling us to exercise better control of our lives. The concept of "being born again" - removing any Christian connotations to this - is really just the ability to start all over again, to overcome the given way to interpret our perceptions and experiences with the external world according to our parents and friends and begin interpreting that independently or autonomously and that often means a complete transformation in their environment and the people that they associate with. A healthy psychology is a person who has achieved that kind of balance, that peace which leads one to happiness.

You can never directly know, but the process maximises our agency, the ability to feel, our moral well-being and virtuous conduct, and so we become distinct and our actions intentional and authentic. This is what 'wisdom' is, which is basically knowledge of our experience.

I think that the importance of true love is often underestimated. — Metaphysician Undercover

Praise science! I just love this subject...

Love is the foundation, in my opinion, the very core of who we are and this is clear in children who have caregivers that fail to provide adequate love or care that such neglect often has a massive impact right into adulthood, including anxiety and attachment issues. Our experience of love alleviates this feeling (hence why if you are in a relationship and feel anxiety, you do not love your partner) and for me that is proof that love is the source of all that makes us human; empathy, care, charity, it is moral consciousness.

When we are young, our perceptions have the solidity of something definite until we become aware of ourselves, at which point we lose this solidity and thus the source of our anxiety becomes this inability to acknowledge an indefinite existence, the fact that we are separate and alone. We don't like feeling helpless and so in our desperation we reach out, to a partner or friends or anything in the external world that we can attach ourselves to, conform and finally 'unite' to return back to that same solidity and definite feeling we had when young. But this solution, this union is all wrong, we trick ourselves and falsely fill that void. It is why what is commonly done to explain existence by the masses does not produce anxiety in us when we follow; anxiety is proof that we have a problem following, but we have not yet 'let go' - it is the unity between automatons that gives meaning through common approval.

People incorrectly believe in this idea that they have "fallen in love" when it is really initiated by the same conformism where sexual consummation is really an attempt to overcome the preceding loneliness. Such love fails so often in our society because we do not see the application of love to be rational but rather 'spontaneous' and so we do not correctly examine that we need to learn how to give it. We study courses or subjects over a number of years to gain a basic understanding of a subject, before proceeding further for another number of years working in the field to gain experience. Why is it that we neglect the study and practice of love? And it is not to one person, but to learn how to give it to all people, it is to basically be a friend.

They are mine in one sense, and not mine in another. It is your failure to make the necessary distinctions there. — Agustino

As I said, I find your position here to be contradictory nonsense. You claim some of your thoughts are "in one sense mine", and in another sense "not mine", and you accuse me of failing to make a distinction. It's very clear that you are the one failing to make the distinction of what is yours and what is not yours, falling back onto contradiction, as if you can justify this failure with contradiction.

And you know full well that you are responsible for your own immoral thoughts, as is evident from "covet", "lust", and "adultery in the heart". So you cannot absolve yourself from responsibility by claiming that I haven't freely chosen my thoughts, therefore they are not mine.

This is very wrong. How can you be responsible for things that are not within your control? — Agustino

When you lose control of yourself in a fit of passion, you are responsible for your actions. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. You may find some legal defence if you have a diagnosable illness, but that's for the doctors to decide. In any case, if the doctors decide that you have an illness, then your thoughts are the thoughts of an ill person, therefore they are still your thoughts. Your insistence that your thoughts are in some sense not yours, is nonsense. In no sense are your thoughts not yours, that's nonsense. You're barking up the wrong tree here.

As I said, I find your position here to be contradictory nonsense. You claim some of your thoughts are "in one sense mine", and in another sense "not mine", and you accuse me of failing to make a distinction. It's very clear that you are the one failing to make the distinction of what is yours and what is not yours, falling back onto contradiction, as if you can justify this failure with contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, I'm not going to let you go on this one. What is this below?

Yeah, they are mine by virtue of occuring in my mind, just as my perception of a tree is mine by virtue of the fact that the tree is in my visual field. They are not mine in the sense that I have freely chosen to have them. Because I have not freely chosen to have them, I cannot be morally responsible for them. — Agustino

Is that not a distinction? Next time, you should put your glasses on, and perhaps read what is being said to you multiple times.

And you know full well that you are responsible for your own immoral thoughts, as is evident from "covet", "lust", and "adultery in the heart". — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope. Again, failing to make the required distinction. Things like "adultery in the heart" involves giving attention to thoughts of having sex with a woman other than your wife - ruminating on them. If the thought just comes into your mind, and you don't give it attention, then you haven't committed that sin. It's giving attention that you control, not always having thoughts.

When you lose control of yourself in a fit of passion, you are responsible for your actions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, but why are you still responsible? Because you could have controlled yourself, through your reason, and failed to do so. Remember, regardless of what impressions you have (such as rage), you must still assent to them in order to take action based on them. That's why you are responsible.

No, I completely agree but what I am attempting to convey is that the process itself, of being able to articulate and examine their past and memories, to be able to understand causal connections particularly that of biological - including health and sleep - as well as genetic, of attempting to analyse and ascertain the authenticity of their perceptions, all this is the process that leads one toward the successful and indeed permanent alleviation of such anxiety. — TimeLine

OK, so this would be a process of understanding one's own conscious mind, self-reflection. Further, you seem to articulate that one can understand a relationship between one's biological health, and the health of one's conscious mind. Furthermore, an individual can ascertain that the health of one's conscious mind is dependent on a healthy biology.

This is because we begin to understand ourselves as an autonomous agent with better clarity and we begin to mature the existential properties that reduce ambiguous mental states, enabling us to exercise better control of our lives. The concept of "being born again" - removing any Christian connotations to this - is really just the ability to start all over again, to overcome the given way to interpret our perceptions and experiences with the external world according to our parents and friends and begin interpreting that independently or autonomously and that often means a complete transformation in their environment and the people that they associate with. A healthy psychology is a person who has achieved that kind of balance, that peace which leads one to happiness. — TimeLine

This is a little more difficult for me to understand. I assume you are suggesting a situation where a person has had problems with the conscious mind, that it has not been completely healthy. You suggest that a "start all over again" is required. What does this mean in relation to the biological condition? The conscious mind forms and evolves through childhood, as we develop. It is in the middle between the environment and the subconscious which is the underlying biological condition. It is shaped by these two features. Are you suggesting that we can go back, "born again", and reshape the conscious mind?

If so, consider this. The subject may be able to release the present conscious condition to a certain extent. Also, appropriate environmental conditions may be provided for that person. And this may be conducive to some success. But the serious issue is the condition of the subconscious, which is a property of the underlying biological features. The principle which I discussed in my last post, is that in the early stages of conscious development, infancy, the subconscious, the biological features themselves, must be conditioned to properly accept the conscious mind. Assuming that we can't really understand how the subconscious is molded to properly accept the conscious, how could we properly deal with the subconscious in this rebirth process?

Love is the foundation, in my opinion, the very core of who we are and this is clear in children who have caregivers that fail to provide adequate love or care that such neglect often has a massive impact right into adulthood, including anxiety and attachment issues. Our experience of love alleviates this feeling (hence why if you are in a relationship and feel anxiety, you do not love your partner) and for me that is proof that love is the source of all that makes us human; empathy, care, charity, it is moral consciousness. — TimeLine

My proposal was that love is the means by which the subconscious, the biological is conditioned to better accept the conscious in the very early stages of conscious development. If this is the case, then we ought to ask how is it that love can affect one's biological features? This may be very simple, such as through eating right and sleeping right, but there may be other factors which reach much deeper. Consider the adult who needs the rebirth which you refer to. That person needs a reconditioning of the subconscious, the biological features which provide for consistency between the subconscious and the conscious. What are all the benefits which love can give?

When we are young, our perceptions have the solidity of something definite until we become aware of ourselves, at which point we lose this solidity and thus the source of our anxiety becomes this inability to acknowledge an indefinite existence, the fact that we are separate and alone. We don't like feeling helpless and so in our desperation we reach out, to a partner or friends or anything in the external world that we can attach ourselves to, conform and finally 'unite' to return back to that same solidity and definite feeling we had when young. But this solution, this union is all wrong, we trick ourselves and falsely fill that void. It is why what is commonly done to explain existence by the masses does not produce anxiety in us when we follow; anxiety is proof that we have a problem following, but we have not yet 'let go' - it is the unity between automatons that gives meaning through common approval. — TimeLine

The unity which you refer to here is "all wrong" because it is not the unity of true love. It is a unity of purpose. This person wants to be close to this other person for some purpose, and so on, just like "networking" except that the purpose is often not revealed, disguised as "friendship", or even "love". When the ulterior motive is revealed there is the inevitable disappointment, the feeling of deception. We can't go on living like this, where the appearance of love is just an illusion, a veil covering the ulterior motive.

People incorrectly believe in this idea that they have "fallen in love" when it is really initiated by the same conformism where sexual consummation is really an attempt to overcome the preceding loneliness. Such love fails so often in our society because we do not see the application of love to be rational but rather 'spontaneous' and so we do not correctly examine that we need to learn how to give it. We study courses or subjects over a number of years to gain a basic understanding of a subject, before proceeding further for another number of years working in the field to gain experience. Why is it that we neglect the study and practice of love? And it is not to one person, but to learn how to give it to all people, it is to basically be a friend. — TimeLine

That's right, love is not taught. I am not religious, but I believe that Christians used to teach love. I don't know if they still do though, because I've never been to Sunday School.

Is that not a distinction? — Agustino

No, it's an illusion of distinction. That I freely choose to have something in no way provides any real means for classifying whether that thing is mine or not. That assumption is ridiculous.

You accept that the thoughts are yours, but you create this illusion, that because "I have not freely chosen to have them", they are in some sense not mine. But "freely choosing to have them" provides no real means for classifying whether a thing is mine or not. So your argument is absurdity.

No, it's an illusion of distinction. That I freely choose to have something in no way provides any real means for classifying whether that thing is mine or not. That assumption is ridiculous. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are such a sophist, you should get a prize for it, you know? It will be called Master Cum Laude of the Science of Eristic. (For the mods, don't think anything dirty, it's Latin).

So thinking is an activity (your words, not mine). If I do an activity without my consent - if that activity is forced on me, in other words - am I responsible for it? If a criminal takes my thumb by force and puts my fingerprint on the lock to the bank's safe, am I morally responsible for opening it for him? :s One cannot be morally responsible for things that lie outside of one's choice. Freedom of choice is a precondition for moral responsibility. So clearly, if an action is not freely chosen, it is not mine, in a very important sense of the term.

But "freely choosing to have them" provides no real means for classifying whether a thing is mine or not. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes it does - you have moral responsibility for the actions that you have freely chosen. So the fact that you do freely choose them is what makes them yours in the moral sense.

You are such a sophist, you should get a prize for it, you know? It will be called Master Cum Laude of the Science of Eristic. (For the mods, don't think anything dirty, it's Latin). — Agustino

Thanks, I appreciate the respect.

So thinking is an activity (your words, not mine). If I do an activity without my consent - if that activity is forced on me, in other words - am I responsible for it? If a criminal takes my thumb by force and puts my fingerprint on the lock to the bank's safe, am I morally responsible for opening it for him? :s One cannot be morally responsible for things that lie outside of one's choice. Freedom of choice is a precondition for moral responsibility. So clearly, if an action is not freely chosen, it is not mine, in a very important sense of the term. — Agustino

You've now resorted to standard determinism. If you believe in determinism, and think that you are not responsible for your acts because of determinism then so be it. That is your belief.

Yes it does - you have moral responsibility for the actions that you have freely chosen. So the fact that you do freely choose them is what makes them yours in the moral sense. — Agustino

No, even if you are for some reason not morally responsible for your actions, the actions are still in all respects, yours. Being absolved from moral responsibility does not in any way make your actions not yours. You're arguing absurdity.

You've now resorted to standard determinism. If you believe in determinism, and think that you are not responsible for your acts because of determinism then so be it. That is your belief. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you explain how the position I've outlined is determinism? Also please clarify what you mean by determinism.

No, even if you are for some reason not morally responsible for your actions, the actions are still in all respects, yours. Being absolved from moral responsibility does not in any way make your actions not yours. You're arguing absurdity. — Metaphysician Undercover

This makes no sense. The claim is that I'm not responsible for some actions because they are not mine in the moral sense of the term, so I cannot have moral responsibility for them, since I didn't choose them. Sure, my finger may have pressed the button, but it was forced by the criminal to do that - I never consented to it. So the action is "mine" if by that you mean that it is performed through my finger, but it is not mine in terms of its moral relevance - it belongs to whoever forced me in that case.