I often get the sense that I am aware of distinctions within my mind (such as between feelings and the emotional reactions they initiate) that others are either unable or unwilling to discern. There are times when the discussion leads me to assume the former.

You use the term ‘reaction’ as if it’s an involuntary response, but I dispute this. When we feel anger, the limbic system responds: the heart rate goes up, adrenalin flows and the muscles prepare for fight or flight. That’s an involuntary response to feeling. We can’t change that.

But an emotional reaction takes into account our sensory inputs, memories, logic and knowledge. We locate the source of the stimulus and direct our energies towards what we determine to be the most effective or valuable reaction in relation to the organism. Most of the time this is achieved without conscious thought - this, I suspect, is the ‘internal reality’ you seem to think I don’t accept. I accept it as a reality, but not as a necessity. Because when we apply conscious attention to this internal process (self-reflection), we realise that a reaction appearing most valuable to the organism is not always the most effective one (or the most valuable to civilisation), and also has effects that can be damaging at a later time. With that, we can adjust the value structures that determine our best course of action, so that when a similar feeling occurs in the future, we are aware that we can react differently. This may take some conscious effort initially, but eventually we can develop it into a better reaction without conscious thought.

That a rape victim would hate the man raping her just seems like a given. It is. It is a response to hate and violation. To me judging it as something that should not be there is like judging someone's immune system for imflamatory response around a wound or for violently struggling to get to the surface of water when running out of air. — Coben

I will point out first of all that ‘rape’ refers to a past (perhaps current) situation - not one that can be anticipated or reliably predicted. Because the split second before it becomes ‘rape’, it is considered by society to be a perfectly acceptable interaction. That a woman who finds herself in a rape situation would feel intense fear, anger and frustration is a given. It is most likely also a given, and perfectly understandable, that she would actively attack the reality of what is happening.

But let me ask you, hypothetically: if there was a more effective way to put a stop to unwanted sexual advances that didn’t require a woman to physically or verbally attack (which may not be effective and would probably result in her sustaining more harm), would that be a better course of action? If she could show reluctance, resistance or say ‘no’, ‘stop’ or even ‘wait’ or hang on’ - and have her words or actions mean something - would that be better? Why do we have to wait until a woman reacts with strong emotion, violence or hate before we recognise that something needs to be changed about the situation?

A woman would have expressed her fear, frustration or anger long before the situation could be termed ‘rape’. Let me explain what I firmly believe angers, frustrates and frightens women most about rape - what continues to be glossed over and what needs to be changed: it is how much any man can interpret, distort and ignore what a woman says or does when his focus is SEX - and genuinely believe his perspective is true.

litewave — litewave

Nicely put and I agree.

Regards
DL

So your perspective is that our greater complexity is just a pointless extension of our basic animal nature - and there is no real point in self-reflection at all, let alone revising our behaviour patterns or seeking information, except perhaps to increase chances of ‘survival’ in a losing game...?

Possibility — Possibility

What I see our friend saying is that he seeks gnosis as described in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9QI3nlinYQ

Do you think knowing yourself as fully as possible is pointless to our survival?

Regards
DL

Do you think knowing yourself as fully as possible is pointless to our survival? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I think knowing yourself as fully as possible is essential. But I think survival as the main purpose of knowing yourself is misguided, and I think pursuing our survival as the ultimate goal is pointless.

But I think survival as the main purpose of knowing yourself is misguided, and I think pursuing our survival as the ultimate goal is pointless. — Possibility

If survival is not your main goal in life, what is?

Regards
DL

If survival is not your main goal in life, what is? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration

Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration — Possibility

Those can only come to you if you have already insured you are alive.

Without survival, nothing else can follow.

A dead mind/consciousness cannot be aware or connect and collaborate with anyone.

Regards
DL

So your perspective is that our greater complexity is just a pointless extension of our basic animal nature - and there is no real point in self-reflection at all, let alone revising our behaviour patterns or seeking information, except perhaps to increase chances of ‘survival’ in a losing game...? — Possibility

Survival instinct must arise somewhere at the start of evolution, unless you assume an intelligent creator who can create living beings without a survival instinct and then can keep them in a safe place where they can live and evolve - which doesn't seem to be our world, although we may already be becoming such intelligent designers by applying genetic engineering or cybernetics.

That said, we don't need to always act with the conscious intention to survive or reproduce, even when our actions do promote our survival or reproduction: we can simply enjoy food or sex. And complex beings like today's humans can also indulge in activities that don't directly satisfy their survival or reproductive needs; they can even afford to indulge in activities that are detrimental to their survival or reproduction, as long as they have the means to reverse or mitigate such detrimental effects (for example pharmaceuticals, surgeries, etc.). As I said in the previous post, love (or similar feelings like happiness) seems to accompany accepting behaviors, so theoretically an organism can develop love for things that are beneficial or detrimental or neutral to its survival or reproduction - by accepting the things (as opposed to resisting them).

By the way, I don't argue that we are purely extensions of our animal nature. Who knows, we may have started our evolution in a spiritual/non-material world, perhaps even with an intervention of an intelligent creator, and arrived here later. My argument is about evolution and feelings like hate and love in general.

What I see our friend saying is that he seeks gnosis as described in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9QI3nlinYQ — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Well, I'm curious about general aspects of reality and existence. I also think it would suck if I bit the dust at the end of this life and that was it.

414 — litewave

I fear more being eternal and being bored to tears in an eternity of what wold seem like re-runs that I have seen a million times over.

Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch.

Porn movie and even sex if allowed x many time, like 7678966668978008898000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 = times would even get borrrrrrrrrrrrrring.

Regards
DL

A never-ending life does not necessarily entail repetition. Moreover, more complex bodies or mental structures may hold qualia we can't even imagine yet.

A Big Crunch doesn't seem likely from current data. Expansion of our universe is currently accelerating and the most likely scenario is that it will expand forever but at some point it will end up in heat death where all stuff is homogenously distributed in space and thus supports no life. Maybe an extremely intelligent civilization evolved over billions of years will be able to manipulate some parameters of the universe to ensure endless continuation of life.

Time will tell.
Both science and religions now have gods of the gaps.
Regards
DL