Monday, April 28, 2014

My Procedural Bias

I believe, and I cannot help but think, that everything exist in constant movements.  There is no static universe, there is only our static interpretations.  This bias prevents me from absorbing a lot of academic information[1] and provides me with the ability to be more than an academic, but an aware global citizen.  In academia the quest is to make a theory, a model, a methodology, a paradigm proposal, etc. etc. that explains an aspect of reality.  In everyday life the quest is to understand the aspects of reality that are most essential to our daily lives; monetary income,self actualization, success, charity.... respect, duty, love, honor... whatever they may involve, they involve things that actually exist, and how we maneuver and work with these aspects of our reality. We perceive a reality, and we interact with it.  The various aspects of reality that effect my ability to perceive and interact are not necessarily always in my perceptional-awareness (cognition), but can become more involved when double-backing on my memories of what was perceived.  This is popularly called metacognition, or the process of metacogitating - thinking about thinking.
_____
[1]-academic information - from a scholarly, professional, journalistic and/or political source of general knowledge, data and/or library.
_____
Connect the asterisks
______
*How I have come to observe this procedural bias, I only rationalize such as a higher order thinking due to an evolutionary advantage in our human species. 

**How I am able to connect this stream of consciousness from 'everything is in constant motion and never static' -to- 'thinking about thinking' is the exact type of lunacy my brain can conduct, with most of the blame; my existential excuse, being the inability to ignore said lunacy (- the narration of this thread of a stream of consciousness).

*But, we can better focus on what it then means to be able to think in a higher order, and how it might be advantageous.  **Or not.
_____________

Do we all have this bias? To some magnitude, to some degree?
Does it effect your ability to learn facts and memorize them like myself?
Do you perform poorly or average in an academic environment (school and university)? No matter the effort?
Do you believe my above stream of consciousness is valid to connect 'the belief of constant motion' with the ability and process of 'thinking about thinking'? Why?

No need to answer, just pointing out additional personal biases. The questions, for myself, are answered by a series of agreements!
____________

Back to the point:

With this bias, among the many I presume I have (except the bias that there are no actual bias but 'how we generally think' in which would be the 'bias to believe we are naturally biased' - which is not genuine), I also have issues interrelating with others.  As I see the world, I see it as something that is but a shadow of it's former self, as soon as I look at it closer.  Once up close, it is no longer the same. Sometimes, we should not look too close at the issues of others - it's advantageous to not, for several reasons: usually a manner of respecting aspects of their individual 1. personal space, 2. boundaries, 3. privacy, and/or 4. information that would be felt more secure as keeping to oneself.  I rather enjoy when people look closer at me, I can also understand how if not welcomed or warranted, it can be offensive to another.  Which is why the Golden Rule fails me - to add to my already series of incoherent statements - because I want others to challenge me and my opinions and my motives, because I would like to always do that to others, but cannot. 

But then I ask myself, do I perform an additional bias for recognizing my own biases and then performing them anyways? **As a stream of consciousness is lunacy, imagine the entire conscious-agency...

I would say no to myself; the procedural bias is already in effect - I am already doubling back on my thoughts in light of them, and reality as always moving, changing and/or in a flux state.

An additional bias may be in effect when I am actively not able to interrelate with another, but perhaps we can just call that 'poor socializing skills'.  Poor socializing skills as a result of the procedural bias... which I should not make a new point:

Since I have this bias, and also believe others have it, I also recognize it might not be as 'heavily active' or 'momentarily influential' to others as myself.  So, the procedural bias, like all cognitive biases, have degrees and/or levels of activity.

For instance, no matter the bias being discussed, there is a 1-100 scale and no ability to be 1 or 100 but any number in between.  How intense one's bias strength may be, would effect their overall thinking - even personality. 

I cannot talk about a person with high or low degrees of procedural biases, because I do not even know if it is a real thing, it is only something I am calling by something else to discuss.

Again, this back-tracking and reanalyzing is a part of my bias.  It's necessary to not be biased about the discussion of my bias(es) - while still acknowledging I am always being biased.

It's quite maddening to edit this.
___

So personality was brought up and perhaps can shed more light on how this bias may also be effecting you, while showing how any biases (recognized or not) is effecting who we are and how we think. 

Now, introvert and extravert are usually misunderstood from what Carl Jung meant. He explained both as 'where one processes their knowledge' and that can either be 'through oneself' or 'involved with others'.  So an introvert is not necessarily someone shy or unspoken, they tend to be people who seek out answers which need to be processed by their inner-voice, or conscious. An extrovert is someone who is a crowd-pleaser, listens to the majority and responds.  So we are all both introvert and extravert, we are just more of or the other - sometimes a balance.
 
When bias may come into play (let's say for example the bias in which we are confirming information because we heard it from family as true no matter what) it effects certain people ann their behavior differently in the short and long term.  An introvert may be shy to confirm with their family at first, and be agreeable to that information.  An extravert may be quicker and more agreeable without hesitation to confirm that information.  We can also confirm introvertedly or extrovertedly towards [different] certain information; for instance we may confirm differently towards how to raise a child and what to do about paying the mortgage.  How we confirm, to [different] certain information, may exemplify who we are as a person, persona and/or personality.(A rough example)
_____

I guess what I wanted to say is two things: 1. I suffer from a severe case of 'procedural psychosis' that while interesting to encourage in the arts, does not necessarily provide effective communication for an objective measure. And 2. That although I suffer from 'procedural biases' it does not mean others do not, in fact, I believe, everyone has this bias, but to different degrees and applications.

1.  I can now better put my bias aside to say "I choose to encourage this bias because it allows metaphysical contemplation to be more practical, while I understand it does not necessarily mean what I believe to be practical is actually practical, but my belief it is practical, which I have to defend." In other words: "I accept my bias, because I cannot see myself thinking in other terms."

2. This post can allow myself (and others) to witness my 'lunacy' or otherwise my opinions of how my normal thinking is that of normal thinking of others.  More specifically: "If I am biased to believe that everything is a constant-change, others must be, whether they (or I) can recognize such a bias." Ultimately that may be my own bias to believe, but, until proven wrong, it is one I will stand by as having substance for discussion and research!

The Procedural Bias

This is the original content of Nicholas Lukowiak

When I Think (Short and Brief Post)

2 + 2 does not just equal 4.  It equals 3 + 1, 5 - 1, 6 - 2, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1,  but indeed, the idea of '4' is there, it is the "best" answer for 2 + 2, but it does not make it the only answer nor the only answer we can learn from.

When I think, I think about how there may be one 'best' answer, but there are still many answers that can come from any question.  Even if it just 2 + 2

Critiquing quotes #3

“Do not train a child to learn by force or harshness; but direct them to it by what amuses their minds, so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each.”  - Plato

Ancient, and I mean ANCIENT, wisdom for us to take from - ignored. 

Modern education systems do exactly what Plato is suggesting NOT to do; do not force or harshness but allow amusement and discovery. 

The difference?

A child (or any person) already has a 'personality' and 'intelligence' given to them [what seems to be] randomly by genetics (nature).  It is environments (nurture) that aids in molding a child.  Allowing a child to find their interest, their curiosity, and/or their 'amusements' can lead them to finding themselves and potentially 'what they will like to become an expert in' (if that is only one thing or many!).


We educate child to test-and-go, while in a system (designated by age-groups and not ability), which only teaches them they NEED formal/government education or else they cannot succeed, in order to 'continue' education in something they are not particular confident they are experts in or care to be involved in...


In short: Our education system poorly educates our youth everyday that they are not allowed to express themselves in what they would like to learn, and not what we force them to learn.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Why Morals Matter More For You Than Me

WHAT IS ORDINARY?!?!?!

IS THERE AN ORDINARY WAY/PROCEDURE/STYLE/METHOD/MODE OF THINKING!?

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
Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

___________________________________


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: lukowiakn1@mail.montclair.edu 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: http://community.pflag.org/page.aspx?pid=803
+ 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!

Disclaimers/Warnings:
TRY TO NOT EXPECT MORE THAN FREE ADVICE FROM THE STRANGER YOU ARE ASKING FOR ADVICE! BE RESPECTFUL AND BE KIND, YOU ARE SOURCING THEM FOR A POSSIBLE OPINION OR PERSPECTIVE ON YOUR CIRCUMSTANCE!
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!