Saturday, April 12, 2014

Why Morals Matter More For You Than Me



My opinion is, the resolutions to objective morality come from the question of the ordinary mind, and as it relates to be an individual human being among an entire humanity - rather we are just one of a whole and understanding the whole is how we can better understand the one.

"Questioning morality is pulling at the thread of humanity."

A moral moment, as in a moral dilemma, are dependent on previous morals and will be resolved in light of making a morally based decision.  Enough with semantics.

I actually have a problem with most questions of morality, and what is the moral thing to do or not. I think morals are usually left for witnessing one another's actions, and if they violate a self-accepted ethical understanding of right and wrong (which I appointed to be there).. Then we somehow end up becoming or playing a moralist and ethicist, as if my opinions mattered to more than just myself... The ability to question morals becomes the new dilemma.

It is the actions that are the result of the persons' true moral beliefs

If this is ordinary, to have a sense of morality, to question it more intently during times where it is used. Then I would work to be more than "ordinary" by mere reflection of "morality" and 'ethics' outside of the moments which require those inquiries to be resolved, if even loosely. This goes for all thought.  But, put consciousness before the thoughts, moments and concern of morality. If I only play ethicist when their is an ethical dilemma, and it violates my moral beliefs... I would like to be prepared to handle this violation, with a clear head, based on more than just my morals involved. 

"In fact, if others do not directly harm you, there should be less reason to be aggressive. If they merely harm your belief systems, there is still no reason for aggression until they are harming others or yourself - and if that is due to violating and harming your beliefs, then we need to consider the entirety of the situation and all it's dynamics."

What's relative to morality is immense, and at times when those who just settle with morals as always being relative forget we all are able to question morality, which makes them involved with the subjective - our minds and selves.  An entirely psychological connection, is the fact we are able to "THINK" - we think, that means we understand what anyone means when they write the word think.  Not-a-proof? Okay, any intelligible-actual-language-that-exist, if they write down a word for think, we can translate it and understand think.  More proof: some languages have more than one word for think and thought - emphasis changes - meaning not only do we think, we think about thinking.  Evidence based on language itself. You question my over usage of thinking, fine.

Are you however, every time the word is read, actually taking the time and moments to question "thinking." Is there a momentary pause, or is there just a passive absorption of the word 'thinking' being read? Depends on the context, the moment, reason, purpose, relation to the material being read? What if I said, how often you pause or pass the word 'thinking' could signify your general thinking? Impossible! It is. However, to oneself, that just may be the case. What is thinking? What is thinking 'proper?' What is the best right way to think? What is the right way to think? What is the only way to think? Is there more than one way? How many ways? What effects the ways we thinking? Can I know everything that effects my thinking? How about how that effects/affects this? Do the ways people take effect who they are? Do we have choices in all the ways we think and the "paths" we take? What is choice? Do we get more choices from thinking? Do we get more choices to think when we think about the way we think and/or could possibly think? Knowledge of choices, effect our decisions? What is knowledge, how does it relate to what is "thinking?" Our decisions effect our thinking and thinking effects our decisions? So knowledge of choices, effect our thinking, of more choices? Is this thinking too much? What is too much? When is happiness effected? Now, I'm sad, and done questioning... Do you get sad, every time you consider these^ questions of consciousness/thinking, and/or a relatable series of inquires? Do you do so every time you read the word "thinking?" Neither do I. But, I imagine there are individuals that do.  I imagine there are more who have never.  And then there are the unfortunate who are never able to. That sentiment goes for far more than thinking.  We are our thoughts, WE collectively are our thoughts. We are mind. 

The virtuous point of epistemology: Morality and thinking, should be interchangeable.

"What is ordinary, is what is most important to reflect on, not to accept without 'a reflect'."

Philosophical objectivism is absurd due to the premise that it dependent on the same definition of what is an absolute. Well, that type of thinking is exactly what Zen teaches me not to think, but to understand it exist.  That we believe we can know something absolutely, but we can never actually know something absolutely.

The question of what is objectively moral, then, is where there seems to be a more vague entanglement of innate meaning (what is the essence of a moral?). Because, again, what is objective? What is right and wrong for me, and is it for others?

Whether or not we can have these answers (of what is actually the more moral thing to do in this instance or with that dilemma) we should strive to do so anyways.

Our ability to be a moralist (at the moment of dilemma) will amount to either 1. how much we considered these types of morals and 2. how much we haven't considered these these types of morals.  Which would ultimately narrate the resolution(s) of the dilemma(s) at hand.

There can be too much preparation, which can result in oversights and long term effects not being noticed in the moment.  There can be too little preparation, which can result in far more oversights and long term effects not being noticed in the moment.  Which extreme seems more impacting on others and yourself?

'A great instance of where we can seem like we are making a moral choice is charity.  We send clothes and food to those third world countries with a joy we are giving with no expectation of a return.  Yet, when millions of people send an impoverished country food and clothing, do they question themselves about the people whom are already suppose to be growing, making and selling the food and clothes products in that country? In a world where capitalism is the difference between a first, second and third world country... To give them materials which otherwise would be produced (through markets) is actually eliminating their ability to compete in the world.  You take away work from farmers, merchants and stores when you donate these clothes and food without more investment.'

The above is an example of how a series of good actions with good intentions can ultimately lead to a series of negative consequences and results. Now a question: Should those who donated feel bad/awful/negatively about what/how they have contributed towards the prevention of a country to develop with the rest of the world? And what should they do about it, if they do feel bad?

No matter the answers, these are moral dilemmas. And although it is an advanced example (because it is likely to be true), it should only show how lack of prior 'moral exercise' can result in decisions that would thought to be 'good' to actually be 'bad' in the long term.

Is this a result of how human's do not think about the future of others, but the moment of ourselves? Or is this just a result of our lack of questioning morality?

To me, they are one of the same. Hence 'why morals matter more for you than me' - because if the decisions you make now seem pleasant and proper and justifiable but later turn out to be the contrary, only you can feel/respond to those reactions.  Others may be effected by your actions, but you are the only one who can feel the consequences of your actions that effected others.

No argument valid to insist people are not people or not to be treated as your neighbor, and as savages. If we are mainly external beings (dependent on others), these unsophisticated people (whom can rationalize how we are able to not treat others like people) are merely reflecting their culture and random environments. No different than you. You are just not the same type of person they are but unless their is absolutely no reason to get along. Defense should be made. Not an offense. Over time of defending new perspectives can be considered between opposed sides. In offense, there is no time to think but do.


I don't like this post, at all, but I just wanted these thoughts to be out there.

Monday, March 31, 2014

Solipsism Resolved; The Mind Exist Therefore Minds Exist

Through a series of arguments I will attempt to prove solipsism is not a practical philosophy to explore reality - but, still, a good exercise.

My main theme, reason and position: We are external beings having internal experiences. 

First and foremost a definition of Solipsism: "
Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,” or “My mental states are the only mental states.” However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, “existence” means for me my existence and that of my mental states. Existence is everything that I experience — physical objects, other people, events and processes — anything that would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the space and time in which I coexist with others and is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word “pain,” for example, to mean “my pain.”  He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one."

**I highlighted the parts where more of my counter-thoughts will be made towards.
*Degree of importance for discussion goes from red - green - yellow


A. Social Influences (and how you are able to influence) prove existence outside of 'mind':

1. The language you use. The education you have. The music, movies and art you may follow and/or enjoy. The religion you're organized with. Friendships. Relationships; include romantic. Likes/dislikes. Preferences.

1.a. These factors are dependent on what we commonly call social influences. The need-to-adapt-to-our-environmental-axioms are manufacturing a part of our knowledge which alter/effect our ability to be truly free conscious agents and prevents us from understanding how the external is in the moment, and not truly free of bias. And in a lifetime
 conflicting/working with our internal identities (our personalities and person) and then again effecting out we observe and interpret our environments and perception of reality. Ultimately, we resolve this issue with band wagon.  But, we do so without completely aware of the extent.

2. You exist, because you live in a society, and if others from said society can say you exist, you must exist. This is a default living condition for us; this is our social-existence. Expanding our own consciousness comes from reflecting on the agency of others in and out of our own social existence. Also understanding their social norms which provide them with their physiological biases. Once you think about it, it changes. It can be thought or cognition or belief or knowledge or truth or consciousness itself - this is metacognition; philosophizing; thinking about thinking. Your thoughts are not you. "You" are how you use your thoughts and let your thoughts use you. As a sophisticated thing we have external influences and internal problems to solve. Solving those problems come as easy as picking what works best and most often, most of the time. Easy does not necessarily mean better for our mind. External influences are merely the values obtained in society, ones family and heritage, culture, friends...

2.a. How to live life comes from these points within our social existence, with or without one's awareness of [to] the extent, while we are trying to figure out life. Just look at others with more of an open mind. We have more similarities by natural argument than otherwise. 

3. What is the best way to think about the mind?
What is the proper way to "think?"
What IS thinking, and what do those answers do for newer thinking?

The fact is... the mind is an exponential inquiry with respects to philosophy and to any scientific investigation.

But, with philosophical intensity, there can be practical answers to the questions of mind.  They involve... not thinking so ordinary.

3.a. The simple answers seem to exist within the essence of these conceptuals - 1. instinct, 2. culture+society+family, and 3. the natural self and/or one's personal human nature.  The 'natural self' is who you are randomly as an individual consciousness -a solo conscious agent- a personality and intelligence... in prehistory a "soul."  While you have the same 'brain' and 'environments' as others - you do not share the same seemingly random experiences with your genetically random self.

3.a.i. In a sense we are external beings have an internal experiences: 

The majority of factors (bits of knowledge) involved with effecting -our ability to [self] conceptualize-(metacognate) are from the external world.. While we construct reality idiosyncratically, in our perceptions, based off of overall metacognition, we then only organize internally -our ability to [self] conceptualize-(metacognate). The prime aspects of our cognition are dependent on features which are not physically attached to the mind, but in a manner responding to prerecognition (a double scope). Then our ability to recognize metacognition, rationally <-> intuitively as a reflection to higher order thinking, is then obviously what we have in common.   

3.a.ii. We are beings, namely human, which are evolutionary designed<->developed with the ability to extensively think about our thoughts.  WE have mechanisms producing various abilities to perceive reality according to our instincts, prerecognized environments, and random selves.

3.a.iii. If we are 2 parts not-self, and 1 part self, than we are more external than internal.  This would resolve long lasting epistemological conflicts of externalism and internalism, if we agreed to say "we had 3 or more minds to talk about where knowledge comes from."

Understanding ordinary mind as 3, means worrying about more than the 1 that is the "self" - worrying about others and humanity as a whole - will make a mind develop ordinary.

B. The General Discussion of Mind - how can we have one in the first place?
1. "What is ordinary?" is up for strong speculation from a lot of traditions and minds and beliefs. But, what strings them together is the desire to under "mind" and how to use our 'mind' better. 

1.a. Argument extending Social Influences 3.a.:

 We are 1. instincts, we are 2. others and we are [a] 3. self-identified "I" or "me" or "SELF"

If there are 2 things that effect 1, while being 3 (in a cycle, like water for instance [liquid, ice, steam)... There must be not so ordinary (everyday, momentary) thinking involved in HOW we are thinking. We are then a mind unaware of the other minds.  We are then a mind where 2 + 1 = 3 and 1 - and then makes sense, while defying mathematical principles and laws which are immutable in nature... If mathematical logic had any ability to explain consciousness, the mind or the extent of human cognition - we would of already had those answers by now.  Instead, now, algorithmic maps are designed to answer the most basic of basic questions of cognition (thought processing); what is making a decision deprived of? what makes the decision more ideal? what makes us biased in decision making? what influences biases, decisions and overall cognition?

2. Mind can mean a lot, especially depending on syntax, so to say what is *ordinary* of mind, is to also suggest there is ordinary to A LOT [which is involved in understanding the human mind]. Which there is, there are patterns in the universe.  How we articulate them, is the puzzle - easier solved while working with others, and often more advanced when working for others.

2.a. Mind as Spiritual Entity: We practice reflection of mind to be able to better understand our irrationalities... If we understood the brain is the carrier of mind-spirit which is celestially pulling us towards other brains in bodies, and bodies with brains...

As soon as you rethink about how you are not truly original: you cannot create anything NEW - nor - create things others cannot duplicate.  You risk losing a piece of the humanity, the mind which is guided by others.  With risk comes reward.


In conclusion I end this blog post with a simple suggestion... STOP DEBATING SOLIPSISM AS A PLAUSIBLE STANCE AGAINST COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS!

The dedicated monist monk that will live his/her life in a constant state of not-knowing will come no closer to the meaning of existence than the ant pushing a piece of shit into the ant hill.  It's all a matter of perspective... And looking down on human beings compared to ants, we are doing no better - and if you disagree, you should reconsider what it means to have a 'mind' that is not attached to being an 'animal.'

As a human being we are innately like every other human being in our deepest desires... Not a unique entity, it just seems that way, your mind is not special unless others deem it special by social standards, get over it. 

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Responses to a stream of responses....

I regularly go on a series of Facebook groups and converse with strangers about random topics... I even began to admin two groups 'Zen Mind' and 'Buddhism in Action and Non-action' which is pretty enjoyable to help maintain and moderate.  But, my post isn't about my admin work and/or my experiences posting on these groups and discussion.  My post today is about a particular young man's question and how I responded to it.
Victor Enesi Ipemida's original post: why do we do anything we do? Don't you all see how empty life is?? (pause a moment and reflect).

The following is our brief back-and-forth with additional commentary in (parenthesizes).
Nicholas - We do anything because we are afraid of an empty life.

(At first I thought I'd just give a quick clever comment and no longer mind the original post (OP).)
Victor - we are being controlled Nicholas, it's obvious. We could be controlling ourselves lol
Victor - fear is a factor, yes, but "ignorance" is the prime factor. (He said this to someone else, and I also responded to this.)
Nicholas - WE are being controlled - implies an Illuminati and/or otherwise 'shadow governance' without pretense of nature and/or a divine force. Which as a conspiracy theorist, I can see very clearly.

Ignorance creates fear, yes, but also ignorance creates joy.
So the question of knowledge is still in dispute - too much or too little, and then, what happiness?

What exactly is your general stream of consciousness - which made you post this? Just to get a response? Or are you looking to respond? To what, and why?

(Ah, I do admit it, I am a conspiracy theorist, but only on as a true skeptic. But that is a topic of it's own to pursue at a later date.)
Victor - Nicholas, I've seen that before, attacking the post. You see? Humans are inevitably PREDICTABLE! (don't attack the post again, your mind's telling you to) lol.. it's just a thought, bro. A deep thought about how we incessantly struggle and struggle (some say, "For the future") lol.. maybe nature should have given us more than 2 eyes loooooooooooool        ("It's just a thought" is an existential cop-out to me! If it was JUST a thought, then it does not need to be said.  Once said, it is more than a thought, it is now a spoken/written thought (an opinion, observation or perspective)). 
Nicholas - No, usually, I attack the post. But now I am directing my thoughts at you as an individual, and am attempting to individualize our responses in light of that.

I responded to the post in what I believe was a resolution to a metaphysical concern found
in nihilism and existentialism. However, you changed the terms, you dictated something even more grand - an architect of our existence. I responded to that with discussion of shadow governance or a divine being. Without you dictating that specific aspect, it is still unclear.

Again, I am not attacking the post, I am directing my discussion towards you as a person, in hopes you can understand something new in a different perspective.

The third eye is useless if you do not know it's there and it's your only true-eye.

(What I thought about when I read 'maybe nature should of given us more than 2 eyes' is both humorous and disturbing...  His comment was funny, but at the same time, as humans, we do trust our eyes entirely too much.  They are parts of our machine designed to help us survive with visuals, not to make our visual absolutes - that's our brain's flaw.  Hence the discussion of the 'third eye'.)

Victor - Nicholas, it's there, the mind's eye, bugs me all the time. Conscious sleep and all that, mind's too far gone. Anyways, about the "architect", I uhm see the issue of God in a different light, as one birthed of perspective.

It's the shared difference between the grand and the singular. Or streams of locus points generated by thought.

I see you have great insight, and an argumentative approach.

When I question the ultimate reason for action, I questioned the source of our reasoning, the range of our desires and most importantly, the primitive "consistency" of action as a derivative of rule.

In short, I want to understand the human mind - separate from my own - better.
Nicholas  - So question the only question greater than God... consciousness

(I got SUPER guru lol, I didn't really know how to respond, because he responded very well and brought back the earlier objection I had made about 'WE being controlled'.  So, we went right past a shadow government to a creator entity... I just felt the eventual discussion was going to lead to 'what can we know?' so, I took a leap of logic to get there. Matching the chaos of another's mind with that of my mind!)
Victor  - Nicholas, share your thoughts...
Nicholas  - Tough.. lol

Trying something new here: Let's say there are 3 general ideas of God, and they involved 1. the self (individuals), 2. an Omni-being or greater cosmic entity (a Creator), and/or 3. a divine force permeating the universe (cosmic consciousness)

Now we can discuss 2 and 3, but without 1. it is useless.

Without you, without your mind, you cannot know God, God cannot be real or possible or potential in any shape or form, without your mind interacting with the universe and it's own existence.. This is what people call "the mind of God" and without it, you know God no better than you think you know yourself...

Essentially, like the question of God, consciousness is exponentially infinite, but, we know we are conscious, we do not know whether or not that makes us God, it just makes us able to argue for a god or gods or God..

(I lied to him saying that these ideas of God are original (new) to this conversation.  I had written about these thoughts before and plan on writing further about the topic of God (as a series of metaphoric representations).)
Victor - Nicholas, I think a clue originates in the understand of the moment of time. What is time and what could possible be god? Natural order, control of the physical. Ideas popping here and there, then you think... god.. who is god? Rather, "what" is god?

Victor - Nicholas or you needn't think of god at all and base down to the more physical reality. One could pattern a cloud so that most abstraction is more or less lost or void. Abstraction is the mother of inquisition.

(Victor had successfully got us both to a point where only a series of conversations would be able to demonstrate how much we are unable to know.  A point where even if we discussed further and in more depth our thoughts about these topics, what would we really gain? A new friend, a new idea or two, a new perspective? For what? My mind asked more questions than his questions were asking. Then instead of following my scream to the ocean, to the well... I existentially copped out...)
Nicholas  - I think... lol, you answered a lot of your own questions once you realized they have been asked before you asked them!

(Maybe it was a tad bit of a superiority complex to not want to fully continue having these conversations... Maybe I felt like I couldn't learn anything else from continuing... Just maybe, I just wanted another person to learn something, or see something different BUT I didn't want to want that for myself (hence superiority complex)... But, I honestly feel this response is the truth... Anything I could have said to Victor in response to his questions, have been discussed and debated before either of us were born... Who am I think I can answer these things? But, in the first place, I was also looking for such a discussion.. A conscious conundrum ... when two streams of conscious met and altered one another.. Or at least I feel that way, whether true or not..)

Nicholas - Victor how old are you?
Nicholas - You look much younger, but you are in university also.

Do you mind if I use some of your questions for a blog post?

Victor - Nicholas, not at all, go ahead..

Thank you Victor for letting me post this on my blog and reflect fully on what you asked and what, how and why I responded.  You said I had 'great insight' but it is you my new-friend that has the true insight!  Keep questioning, and keep moving forward!

Friday, February 28, 2014

A Quick And Easy Self-Help Guide

On a trip to the local corporate bookstore, I noble'd over to the psychology section to see what is hip this month; the best sellers and award winners. To my half-surprise the main material (at least 3/5) on the shelves are 'self-help' books.  I am half-surprised because I would think people would just search engine their specific issues and find information about them online either via specific websites, chat rooms, blogs, forums, and other similar available resources - AND NOT give into the fashion of thinking any ONE (1) book can help YOU (THE SELF). I am not-surprised, because these days people have very little ability to find good information about how to resolve their personal problems (because people would rather profit from helping than just help!).

That suggesting my first piece of advice: Search engine your specific issues, problems, concerns and frustrations - read various opinions and advice from a variety of source!

Whatever psychology is today as far as it's own individual field - is garbage - especially involving
adult-premised therapy.

For child psych is it more problematic to say that so sincerely; childhood traumas can be life lasting, and is difficult to actually change a child's perspective while they still have to exist in such an environment. I digress.

Any type of psychological pursuit that is void of multidisciplinary efforts is no more than an effort to make a profit from the disorganization of individual minds; in both education politics, private practices of therapy, public relations and advertising.  Any desire to try and treat people's minds along with an hourly rate, besides to behave as an educator, is appalling. It is understandable why many would seek a therapist, but it is not understandable why they would not look into how others have had those personal problems and aliments, before them.

How, why could anyone think in such a manner, to be fooled and to believe their problems are original to themselves?

Some quick advice to save your money!

To assist with finding the answers to your own personal problems, I suggest nothing more than the researching via search engines the common issues that individual people will seek a psychologist to cure, or help reflect on, or put into a new perspective.  Love/sex, relationships, family, self esteem/confidence/self actualization... variations of the above 4.

Save your money - talk to yourself, or rather out loud in a mirror or record yourself then play it back a few times.  Just HEARING it spoken can give you a new perspective.

If you are THAT afraid of being a 'crazy' person try some of these:
1. speak to a stranger
2. find a priest or clergy or just someone who is religious who enjoys hearing others problems (you just may not get a response you'd like about faith or beliefs, but it's free and from someone who talks to A LOT of people).
3. Instead of just speaking sometimes digital discussion is just as great. So, ask questions to search engines - there are public and private data bases for articles on how to treat people with disorganization (learn how they are going to treat you anyways, so you go to less sessions - you will know the right questions!)
4. [make, read and discover] blogs, forums and webpages about your exact (or various) issues and even groups of people trying to chat with others on the same boat (Get sailing!)
5. go to someone who is a wannabe psychologist (just be careful!),
6. exhausting my suggestions here, but you could even feel free to message me via e-mail, and I can help you do some of the above: BUT AM NO LICENSED THERAPIST or SOCIAL WORKER OF ANY SORT (DISCLAIMER)

All of these 'choices' should at least suggest one practical thing; we have options, but we need others to understand how we have those options, and to provide us with more options.  If we believe we have a choice in our decisions, entirely, we are to assume we are only able to decide what has been given as options, therefore if we do not know what we can choose, we cannot decide properly (more fully, more consciously, etc).

AGAIN: Do you honestly believe the problems you are facing are original, unique and significant to you, and only you?

If your answer to that is anything but "no" well stop reading, this guide won't help those who do not want to help themselves.  And a large part of helping yourself is to seek help from others (whether family, friends, therapist, priest, rabbi, *stranger, etc etc), because clearly you are searching for a self-help guide you did not write.

For this piece of advice BE ALTERNATIVE and see what is out there! A couple of various points:

- Check out cross-cultural methods! Look into contemporary shamanism, but be warned, it can get psychedelic!  Holistic medicine -such as- meditation, acupuncture, yoga, guided imagery sessions, herbal remedies and/or even simple a massage.. DO YOUR HOMEWORK, DO NOT JUST TAKE MY WORD FOR IT! THERE ARE A LOT OF ARTICLES ABOUT ANY/ALL OF THE ABOVE - THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE BIASED!!!

- Buddhism has long been a source of self understanding - not promoting you to go and become a Buddhist, but their philosophy has existed through the test of time, for a reason.  That reason is, the practice of meditation, contemplation and reflection assist in aiding oneself into a content and comfortable life style.  Read those webpages that promote a Buddhist perspective on your specific problem! Maybe won't have much on child-care, but plenty on esteem building!

- There are online groups of people who just want to give advice to you! Go and share your experiences, maybe you just posting about your issue can help someone else! And that could help you too!
+ With specific issues of gender-identity concerns (namely transgender concerns) there are a great deal of forums and blogs that work with individuals to give them specific guidance, but here is one I found interesting:
+ I find 'asexuality' needs to be discussed more - those individuals are a real minority in this world..

ADVICE ABOUT SEARCHING THE WEB: Try to just read the first few pages of Google, Yahoo, or Bing - 1. keep clicking do real research! 2. Add phrases and words to get more specific with what you want to know! 1.a. The first results are boosted by how much they advertise or how much they have paid to be at the first results. 1.b. IF anything, as soon as you search click to the second or third page IMMEDIATELY. 2.a. Type in a question or demand! 2.b. Try try try! Until you get SOMETHING!

Now here is what I have to say about 'talking to strangers' for the best Self-Help you can find!

One simple explanation: Crowd Sourcing.

There is just no substitute for exploring a variety of opinions and perspectives from others.

Now here is what I have to say about 'talking to strangers' for the best Self-Help you can find!

One simple explanation: Crowd Sourcing.

There is just no substitute for exploring a variety of opinions and perspectives from others.

But, this doesn't help to answer: How do I just start throwing personal problems at complete strangers?

You'd be surprised how open-minded people are to those whom are genuinely in need of assistance. So, here are some useful hints on how to approach a complete stranger with your problems:

1. If they are sitting alone and for a longer period of time (let's say 20 minutes), just go right on up and ask “Excuse me, do you have a few minutes? I have a problem and would really like someone else's thoughts.”
2. Older folk should be the prime targets; they lived an entire life, at this point helping others not repeat their mistakes OR if they can help others with their mistakes will probably make them excited (also, hopefully make you feel the same). There is a great truth to this thought: 'Feeling down? Cheer someone else up!'
3. With that previous great truth stated: Look for people who already look 'down' or sad. Maybe your situation can make them feel better about their problems, or maybe feel better for helping you with yours!
4. If you can keep your problem limited to a 2-3 series of questions that will make it easier for you to source the various individuals you question. Also, it could help on public transportation where you can have 5 minutes to 15 minutes to try to get advice out of someone. Keeping your issues precise and orderly will help you A. not sound crazy when asking, B. get more people sourced quicker and/or C. make your own problems more apparent to yourself!
5. #1's question is your go-to-question, but feel free to also just converse with strangers (at a bar, book store, mall, shopping strip, watering hole, etc) and get to know them! Upon such an intimate exchange, asking your go-to-question can be the difference between “I don't know sorry” to “I don't know, let me think about that for a moment.”
6. Always seem grateful, even if they say “Sorry can't help you” so maybe the person who over heard your approach will feel empathic and want to help you.
7. Hipsters, Hippies, Scenesters, Trendsters and any other generic label you can make for 'hip' people are probably your secondary targets to attempt. They stand the most for getting their rocks off with helping others. They get to tell their respective group of friends about you later! So make sure it's a good story for them to share!
8. Do not discriminate: although older folk and hipsters are probably ideal targets whom would want to help a complete stranger. You cannot ignore odd balls, freaks, geeks, nerds, dweebs, homeless, junkies, burn outs and overall 'misfits' usually only SEEM that way, but probably had lived extensive, interesting and unique lives – their advice can be worth the advice of 5 “normal” looking people. BUT BE CAREFUL!

I will add more over time! This post will be updated in the future!

The perks of talking to strangers:
- You can walk away and they will never know your name without you giving it to them.
- You can be who ever you want within that interaction
- The advice you are seeking doesn't even necessarily have to be for your sake of mental health, but for your curiosity or your “friend.”
- No strings attached! You do not have to worry about their judgments or opinions of you for your problems, they do not know you!
- Not knowing them also gives them more reason to be honest (don't know why just works like that)
- 'Once you tell one person, it's no longer a secret' doesn't imply when that 'one person' is a total stranger!
- Can you think of more perks? Tell me them!

Stay in public when approaching anyone you do not know
Do not go anywhere with anyone you just met
Do not accept any drinks or food
Maintain a distance and try to keep 'friendly' behavior to how you would behave with a friend (don't flirt if you are attached)
If you are getting friendly and want to continue a friendship: take down their personal information for social networks, cell phone and e-mail (ask to see license)
Use your gut! Got a bad vibe? Walk away!

 Any further comments or concerns, please post comments here or e-mail me. I will be reediting this post when I have more to say!

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

The CoP; Happiness and Knowledge revisited

I string together three popular statements (cliches) to introduce how I view the normalcy of human thought:

"Ignorance is bliss - Knowledge is power - With great power, comes great responsibility..."

The idea that not-knowing or being unaware can make us happy, immediately seems absurd and illogical.  However, there may be no greater truth.

Upon posting my cycle of psyche theory, there will be a stipulation of "knowledge v. happiness" - this entire section of theory is dedicated to the idea and procedure of 'happiness' and what knowledge makes us continually happy and/or can make us depressed...

Yet, happiness is the most thought-provoking state of mind, in which the psychology world attempts to answer... Go to any book store, in the psych. section, to find a great number of 'self help' books.  A waste of money if you ask me, because you were most likely happier before you read the book than afterwards if this quote stands through intellection....

So ignorance (denying information and not seeking information) = bliss (a state of mind), but how? Well, no greater culture than an American one to provide examples of such a mathematical formula. Do you know how money works? Do you understand economics? Do you understand what a money market economy pertains to? (Do not take 'you' to heart, if YOU do!)

My point simply is... Americans (and am assured many more nations) live their lives within systems and ideologies which they are never taught to question, and/or dedicate much effort to question... Although these systems and ideologies guide our individual life styles and culture. How money works effects you and I in order to participate fully in our capitalistic system. Yet, there is no education program/curriculum for secondary school about our economic system.  Those who are lucky enough to learn from family or in undergraduate college... Will be better prepared for future living in the U.S.

No simple point can be made really... in short: majorly, not a whole lot of people understand the above topics and issues... Are they dismayed by their lack of knowledge? I would argue the contrary, therefore most 'do not care to know' about economics and politics even... And if they do, the politics is superficial gossip with no real political philosophy behind the effort.

It is easier to not worry, to not stress or to at least try to be concerned with current events... It is easy to say "I don't know, never had an interest in the topic" although we live everyday lives based on such topics...

Ignorance is blissful, because when you figured out enough to 'think/feel' you got life figured out, or a good personal ritual going on... You do not care about alternatives, because immediately you are happy.  Not worried about the future of your happiness, because the future is later... Not now!

(The parental dilemma - the desire to create a future for your children, comes most often after you have your children, but every parent has this desire. *** So, if everyone knows they will have this desire, why do they do so little to worry about it?)

As far as our culture: We are one who does not care about the future in the norm, therefore individuals will not care to focus on life long goals, and rather immediate happiness satisfying..

As for every individual: Happiness does not come from making happiness the goal... Happiness comes from creating a path which allows personal betterment. Ignorance prevents the goal from being a futuristic one... But, very successful at providing immediate happiness, because those who are blissfully ignorant are those who making happiness the goal, and not goals which allow happiness.

If not knowing allows happiness, than more knowledge must creates dismay... Interesting, because of nihilism (as we are prone to stack downwards)! And, knowledge is power! A higher degree of self actualization and social acceptance (another part of CoP) may existentially create dysphoric states of minds.... Is that necessarily bad? Well, with great power comes great responsibility... The knowledge that knowledge may bring you down should be both pleasing and cautionary... Good, because more existential power and bad because one may ultimately become more and more desensitized (less emotional) about superficial knowledge...  (That flower is stupid!)  One must prepare and be prepared to filter through piles of useless knowledge (shit) and figure out what connects and is substantial... That's an individual responsibility, but at the same time, society should work to educate the above! But, it all starts with individuals doing so first!

I see very few problems with eliminating some happiness in trade for eternal happiness... in a sense, you trade childish interpretations of the metaphysical and ideological ... (blissful ignorance)... for deep and challenging notions which come from further (re)interpretations of the said...

This was more of a rant than anything, as time goes on... I will focus these thoughts into others... But, ignorance is the enemy (disease) and in an existential extension (for me), a lot of sources of happiness are destructive for the future development of long lasting happiness an individual and society require to be successful after death... (by such I mean, so successful there next generation will succeed from indoctrination and tradition hand downs).

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Dialogue between a Spiritualist and a Freethinker

"Death Thinking" is vital thinking for religion? You would say "yes," so what is death thinking and why is it a component of religion, and perhaps for everyone's individual belief systems?"

We all die.

"Okay, yes, we all will experience death.  So, the 'meditation' of "death" is Death Thinking? How is that religious, necessarily? What is religion to you?"

Buddhism is a religion.  Their answer to death varies from reincarnation to nothing, depends on the tradition. 

If we all view death, and that effects our thinking, then how we resolve our thoughts on death decide where our mind polarizes.  This polarization is generally guided by memes. Memetic paradigms in evolutionary psychology - have been popularly argued for by integral thinkers - succeed often in suggesting 'themes' and 'elements' of life permeate religion and culture and social demographics varying from small to large populations (and their eventual legacies by influence and reproduction).

"Okay, so I am an atheist, a skeptic sometimes even agnostic, because some 'concepts' or metaphors of God are philosophically profound.  I think once in a while there are images of God that are so beautiful, they come from beautifully minded people, who do wonderful things for others.  That person's belief do everything positive for them and others around them.  While I do not need to belief their God is real I respect them enough to not say they are wrong, I just do not belief the same thing.

So, I am a pretty open-atheist. I try to ease up on the militant attitude. 

Clearly, I do not practice a religion.  I think religions are good for some people, but overall prove do be more harm than good for humanity.  Making "religion" in fact, not what I do."

How do you react to death?

"If it happens, it happens, I'm curious on what happens on the other side. But, generally, I'd do whatever it takes not to experience that curiosity too quickly."

You may not practice a religion, but you have reason to defend your individual beliefs and/or thoughts on death. 

In a nut-shell: There is no real individual way to view, anything.  Because we all think, and more popularly do not think, about DEATH. Meditating on what does it mean to DIE, is significant for one's perspective upon the world.

Clearly you do not believe in heaven, or hell, or reincarnation, or anything.  You most likely believe, nothing happens, we die.

"No, I just said I looked forward to it!"

Looked forward to what?

"I don't know, what if I am wrong?"

So, you could be wrong.

"YEAH, so? Doesn't mean those things ARE POSSIBLE!"

You're right, but do you realize others do believe those things are possible?

"Yes, of course."

So, Death Thinking is thinking of DYING AND 'WHEN I DIE'

Part of thinking, part of philosophy, and how we answer questions (both/either instinctively and/or critically) is encompassing as many factors into our answers as possible.

WE all DIE. So, how does EVERYONE handle death, what is the TRUTH about death? Where and who has these answers?

How one answers this question, tells a lot about who they are as an individual, and often 'religious diversity factors' do have psychological consistencies among that particular demographic. 

"Wait, so what religion do I practice if I am an atheist, skeptic?"

None, really, except a personal one.  You do not identify 'those' thoughts of atheism with death, you do not correlate them, right?.  But you have conflict with others that do.  Usually, atheist say "nothing" after death.  That's a perspective on death, one of which many do not share, and thinking about the alternatives to nothing, is a form of Death Thinking. Considering what heaven would mean to you, what hell would mean to others and how reincarnation could work - is keeping an open mind about death, it is thinking in respects to the diverse ways people think about death - Death Thinking.

In extension, I can tell a lot about you as a person by how you view death.

"Go ahead."

That's not your attitude towards death.


You said you would rather avoid death.

"Yes, and also said I am curious, but what does that have to do with you telling me about my 'person' - my personality?"

Well right away, not much, we would need to explore more of the topic together:

Death and thinking are not mutual.  What I say to you, will die as soon as it becomes birthed to your mind; as soon as you begin to filter it entirely it's no longer the same entity of thought that entered, is had died and then again re-birthed as a series of new thoughts which will eventually also die. 

Whether I am right or wrong, you will change.  Not instantly, and depending on how much you care to take away from me as an individual dictates the type, aspect-of and/or diverse change you endured.  That would be my psychological analysis of you, to help you get a new perspective of yourself, your personality. 

So, to me, the real death-thinking, is your thoughts about death.  *Eventually, by thinking about reincarnation, or heaven and hell, you realize these things are what you make of them, and they are always going to be wrong.  These are ETERNAL topics... What is the truth of the afterlife... Is unknown, no one came back.  Some claim to be reincarnated. Some claim to have voices (spirits/souls) in their 'head'. But, how true  can an individual's story be? Depends on you as an individual to decide. 

Again, this all involves death, if we were to discuss all of this, I could gain a perspective of you and share it in a new outlook.  Yet, I myself am doing so with the thoughts of how everyone else is possibly also thinking about death, and you may not be.  Not until you meditate on the thoughts of others who think death is not just "nothing."

"Interesting, so you are suggesting a psychology of death-thinking will help you understand me better, by just talking about death?"

Yes, and also, it will help you understand yourself.  This isn't comparing yourself to the minds of others by 'what they wear' 'how they look' 'what they say' but how they answer "how do you view dying?"

Odd. I know, but it's going to be the next BIG thing.

"I'm confused, so what is death thinking?"

It's stupid.


It's just another expression for what philosophers/warlords/kings/conquerors -humanity- have been doing for centuries. 

They asked, what is after-death, and kept asking until they weren't afraid of death. They did not fear the risk of death for the profit of life!

And life is what Death Thinking ends up being more valued than a desire for certainty.

Absolute dismissal of the certainty of death... Is thinking that frees us an individuals.

How free one is from thoughts of "death" and being 'wrong' about "death" - can tell a lot - but unless you are in a mindset that observes the other mindsets about death - your or my view is also altered. 

If I do believe in heaven-hell, it's set, if nothing, it's set. Not changing except to entertain a thought!

Depending on HOW, WHY, WHERE, WHEN, HOW they are set^, (and perhaps other factors of diversity), there can be premise for a general psychological determination. 

Just thinking about death, is meditating on death.  And discussing it with others is a social-meditation.  It brings epiphanies and revelations that were not necessarily seen by one's perspective before they began the discussion. 

"Wait, stop, stop.  What ya talking about?"

I'm saying Death Thinking is just thinking and always 'thinking death' when you do. 

This brings an 'impermanence' to the mind! Thoughts will die and be born, constantly!

A lot can be learned about thinking, by questioning the death we will endure!


Reincarnation comes in many forms: we will be animals, than humans again OR we are always humans OR we are only reincarnated on this earth OR we are celestial beings reincarnate throughout the universe...

All of this can also explain how we generally think: 1. we are animals, 2. we are thinking like a 'human', 3. we are extensions of this planet, and 4. we are celestial beings in a physical vessel

All of these^ represent the diversity of how humans have and do think about our existence.  Exploring them all, comparing death to thinking, will shed light on how there are a variety of thought processes attempting to resolve the same disputes. 

"So, Death Thinking is just entertaining the paradigms people propose are potentially possible??"

That was a very fun sentence, and yes!

"But, thinking about death is depressing, at least thinking nothing happens OR being open to anything is possible, doesn't control people into being afraid and finding faith in religion or spirituality."

That is correct, but you are a 'freethinker' you are not worried about being controlled, right? Because you are free to think without social dogmas effecting your thoughts! So, you are more likely to benefit from Death Thinking than a religious individual would be.  A religious individual needs to consider there views on death could be wrong - that nothing can happen or another end result is possible! They need to do that first to benefit from Death Thinking.

"Okay so we talk about death, can you tell me about me?"

First, tell me, which alternative of death is more appealing than nothing?

"Well heaven seems interesting to consider, but reincarnation seems more likely if any. You know, can't destroy or matter - maybe the soul is metaphysical material? So, yeah, heaven is more appealing but reincarnation seems more likely than that."

Are they necessarily exclusive?



"Because the ideas come from different religions and backgrounds and philosophies."

Ah, so you feel just because heaven is an idea from one religion and reincarnation from another, they are different?


Interesting.  Well heaven dictates a 'static' place where you are experiencing eternity in bliss and joy as being more appealing.  While reincarnation dictates a 'constant' flux where you are responsible for eternity being blissful or joyful, being more likely.  What if I was to tell you, this is generally how most people think?

"What do you mean?"

I mean that most people want to find a static place of joy, while existing in a constant flux of responsibility for their own actions.  This means something very simple: we all are generally the same person. 

"So, wait, how that is about me?"

You are attempting to be a better human being, this type of persona is a positive!

"That's not very specific"

Fine, you are one whom enjoys knowing the static truth as it applies towards your constant life, which again, is no different than anyone else! But you have unknowingly, through the question of death, dictated a natural attitude of mankind.  The fact it didn't take too much effort for you to come to think with this normative attitude, means you are actually trying to become a better person!

"So, since I like heaven more but consider reincarnation more likely... I am a better person than who?"

Than yourself a few minutes ago!


The only person you can be better is, is yourself!

"That has nothing to do with my answer to your question about which appeals more, right?"

It has everything to do with it! Did you learn even something slightly new about yourself?

"A little, yeah"

That is all that matters for Death Thinking; when we consider death to be that of a thinking process, we consider what is possible even if it does not seem likely in order to expand our already thinking.

"Interesting, so Death Thinking is about equating death to thinking?"

Like I said, it's nothing new!

"You know you been indirect, vague and ambiguous with a lot of your thoughts here?"

I know.

"That doesn't bother you?"

Does what bother me?

"That you have not directly answered a lot of my questions for your stance on death thinking?"

Do you now understand what Death Thinking means to me?

"Yes, now I do"

So, no, it doesn't bother me I was indirect, because you got the direction I was going for!

"You are still being indirect"

No I am being a spiritualist!

Dialogue between a Transtheist and an Atheist

The dictation of God is innately an individualized sentiment, even if based off of group orientation.

"So what 'I' say God is this and that, does this and that become God?"

Ridiculous because there is no need to talk about this and that and call it God. 

"So there is no need to call cosmic energy or human consciousness or cosmic intelligence, God!"

That's true. But given we are talking about God we must remember how those of us who existed before US discussed and talked about the nature of God. And those are some of the things people did call God. Instead of saying its useless, rather say well in "such and such" context it is only useful. The latter statement is far more anthropologically aware and reflects an open opinion rather than a fundamental standpoint. 

"God is a made up idea to explain the metaphysical universe! There is no reason to continue thinking in any paradigm in the reflection of god or gods."

Half correct. God WAS used for the metaphysical explanations of the universe and still are by many today. And yes we do not necessarily need a concept of God to explain anything. Yet this does not take away from the history and current practice of explaining such phenomenon with the concept God. It merely suggest you are attempting to avoid that paradigm at all cost, which again is fundamental in its own way of thinking.

"So my disbelief in God and the practical use of God, makes me fundamentally atheist?"

Yes in an absurd unorganized manner of contemplation.

You have made a decision on an ancient philosophical topic; God(s) or deities existence. Although even I feel as though you are better off not believing such can exist as a force which effects our human existence. There is no philosophy, short of irreligious reasoning, which can claim either truth is more valid - to think God or not. A burden of proof is usually asked for, but it can be asked for on both sides of the debate. Which neither can provide. Meaning neither have just as much proof and lack of proof

"So besides all this gibberish about how God is so important to human nature and debate and philosophy in general. Why should I consider God to be possible?"

You shouldn't consider certain images of God possible, this is a good practice amongst atheist. Where it becomes poorly guided is to assume all Gods are by metaphor or conceptualization, the same thing. It's avoiding multicultural understanding and more importantly historic insights of evolutionary cultural developments for religions, societies and even politics.

There is no real reason to believe in a God besides a religious or spiritual background. However there is no real reason to not believe and reject God without first evaluating the metaphor or concept of God which the individual or group is identifying as the existing God.

If someone says God is love, instead of stating that is stupid. Ask "how do you live life then?" 

Because even atheist have patterned life styles amongst themselves which came from their atheism. 

Don't believe me?

Try disproving god without science, realism, postmodern rationalism and/or a deductive logic. These tools permeate the majority of atheist I encountered. They are a part of the practice. It's a brown practice. But improvements are clearly needed.

"Who are you to improve atheism?"

A false prophet.

"So why listen to you?"

The problem with false prophets in history was 1. They believed themselves 2. They had the wisdom to understand and know valid truths. 

Whether you accept what I say is valid or not. It is useful to exist as a global citizen. That's my goal. If you don't want that, than this is pointless for you. I apologize.

"Just because the majority thinks it's true doesn't mean it is, how can you say whether or not I'm more of a citizen if I don't buy into what most have faith is true?"

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few... This mindset is not to say to share their faith to cherish the needs of the majority, but to acknowledge their needs as being weighed more heavily than perhaps you, my new age atheist brother. If more believe in a Judea God than not, tolerance is required on a higher scope of consciousness. You don't NEED to accept their faith, but you will do better not dismissing it as a global citizen. This isn't a matter of what is absolutely true, it's a manner of what is objectively true to a large percentage of people you share this planet with. 

Connecting globally, inspiring singularity, collective awareness building... Comes from expanding the current thoughts and not just promoting the antithesis. Synthesizing, as Hegel argues, between the arts and sciences is a must. And there is no source greater for aesthetic admiration than religion and the topic of God.

"So, because it will make me more aware of what most humans believe and accept, I need to be more patient with fundamental theist?"

Indeed. If you are as aware, as conscious of reality as you think, you have to understand there will always be fundamentals that you disagree with when involving others. But that's not where the primary focus should be. It should be on the commonality of us all. 

In a sense I'm saying be spiritual and not religious. Understand we are all in a weird way - lost spirits trying to find our way. And saying someone's way is wrong prevents them from finding a proper, right or more consciously aware path.

"Spirituality is wrong. Science and logic are the best tools for understanding human nature."

I don't disagree. In fact I encourage those types of freethinking and atheistic trends of thought which are growing in popularity amongst our younger generation. But, just because they are our best tools for understanding nature, does not mean they, as TOOLS, can do more than tell you about the relative parts. How we look at them subjectively as individuals needs to be questioned just as much as the relative factors.

"You aren't telling me why spirituality is important to accept"

Do you want a better planet? Peace? Harmony? Global justice systems of law and politics?

"Who doesn't?"

That's spirituality. That's wanting to be more than human. Even Nietzsche dictates how we need a perspective in life that is individualized while aware of social norms and policy.
We are the amount of others. To stop at only loving friends and family is wrong. The stranger is most important. In my opinion.

"No it means I want to be a better human. Doesn't mean I am a spiritual person"

To those who are spiritualist and even religious, that's the same thing. You share a lot more in common with the people you call small minded than you think. Not to offend you because I use to also feel religion and God are stupid concepts to use. But, as I began to question openly and without bias towards those who are fundamentally religious, I began to feel their anxieties of life I share. 

How? Why? What is the point?

While they try to answer these questions with a bible and faith, I try to with knowledge and research. The difference is the approach but the desire is the same. 

Understanding this is important.

"I do understand that, but still maintain how I am not spiritual or religious."

That's fine. But the point here is to be more global. Perhaps just saying you are those things will let others listen to you about science and logic and reason more easier than just arguing. Sharing instead of attacking their beliefs. You have beliefs too!

"I don't have beliefs"

Yes you do. You even have faith. You want to believe humanity can grow out of dogma and superstition. Like you have. And you want to think that is what it will take to save this planet. And if you don't, why live?

"I don't necessarily want those things"

Are you sure you do not want peace for this world?
To make sure no one is hungry? Dying due to fundamental religion or nationalism? Everyone being equal?
If you don't want those things, and if don't want to help work for those thongs. Get out of the way. Your thoughts mean nothing to no one besides you. This is harsh. It's mean. It's crude. But you know what?
If you don't want the world to be better for all. You won't be happy. Why? Because how can you be truly happy knowing the world is dying? Ignorance! Fine. Than leave here knowing your logic is flawed due to ethics. And if the epistemological reasoning behind questioning others and their beliefs of god, rather than dismissing them, is not good enough for you. Keep doing what you're doing as a new age atheist. Watch when you're old how your new age religion formed and be amazed. Or, be truly a freethinker and understand how people think when they talk God. 

"You're not entirely right and are a deist at best"

That's fine. I can live knowing I am trying to understand rather than think I know anything. Which spits in the face of our western fathers of philosophy. 

"You're an obtuse asshole"

Thank you. Go with God! You small minded atheist follower. Check out ignoticism!