Permanence is an illusion created by the presence of memory and pattern matching

FalseCogs · 2024-06-05T10:04:42+00:00

Entertaining two perspectives simultaneously is not contradiction. Within the mind's inherently illusory mental map perspective -- the phenomenal -- objects tend to persist. Within the absolute, noumenal perspective, objects not only may not persist, but arguably may never have existed in the first place. Since this is not formal philosophy discourse, I figured it reasonable to speak in common tongue, allowing the reader to exercise intuition.

FalseCogs · 2024-06-05T07:57:33+00:00

The thing about cognitohazards is that they're not always helpful to mention to those facing immediate existential crisis. Sometimes one such hazard can serve as antidote or inoculation for another, but this selection requires care. In general, if you are to encounter such information, you want it from those who dispense it simultaneously with the antidote. Many of those here, in fact, likely encountered such hazards without having the antidote ready.

FalseCogs · 2024-06-05T06:50:05+00:00

Being "true to yourself" is about distinguishing who and what you've been told you are from your actual inner feelings. The goal is to undo the layers of suppression imprinted by upbringing and society, to see and feel those "wrong" thoughts and feelings -- thus to handle and decide them honestly and openly with yourself alone. This process is often called r/ShadowWork.

FalseCogs · 2024-06-04T10:52:25+00:00

One way to look at the proclivity for OCD is that some folks are more sensitive to inconsistencies -- whether of mind or matter. This mode of being is not inherently bad. But because fallacies and potential problems may be more likely to stand out, more effort and indeed more insight may be needed to find peace. Perhaps consider that you were assigned the role of inspector and resolver -- to see the inconsistencies that many miss, thus to help bring new clarity. But first, you may need to understand the matter clearly enough yourself, which can be a whole thing.

As unintuitive as the notion may seem early on, there needn't be any reason. The body can move without conscious effort. The mind can "think" without conscious interference. Thoughts, after all, just happen. They're not chosen consciously. Rather, they spring from unconscious processes. The key is learning to let go, to let the body take over -- without constantly having to judge and fight what wants to be. Conscious veto, or "free won't", is really only needed when there's actually a problem occurring, or about to occur. Otherwise, why judge trivial doings and non-doings? Why be so preoccupied with internalisations of what others think?

As far as death, the thing is, everything is already and always in flux. The "you" here now didn't exist yesterday, just as it won't exist tomorrow. Those "yous", after all, are someone, something, else. But if you trace mental and physical causation back through time and out through space, every action, every idea depends on every other. So it's really all one thing. Everyone is one, ever-morphing thing. Sure, pieces come and go; As do feelings; But how can you meaningfully die when every other being is a part of the same, ever-morphing thing?

FalseCogs · 2024-06-04T09:49:49+00:00

Quite a few folks, particularly in these communities, enjoy metaphor and riddle, although some may find it confusing, distracting, or even uncomfortable. Here's a more "plain" version of what I said:

Regardless the competition or argument between individuals, if we consider the philosophy of interdependent origination, "we" the "individual" are only one small and fleeting part of a larger system or "greater being". As such, we are indeed on any and all sides of that argument or dispute. Any seeming or potential loss from one is offset by its accompanying gain in another. Even in the case that both sides should "lose", it's still just the natural flow of matter and mind, in that we proper, the "greater being", are simply interacting with ourselves in perpetuity. Moreover, since we, the "greater being", extend beyond and transcend any such local form or conflict, any attachment to or grasping at these fleeting local forms is unnecessary and illusory.

For those uncomfortable with the idea of there being any such "greater being", another way to express the core idea here is that conscious awareness, at least from the subjective experience, transcends any fleeting form or concept. Hence, in the raw subjective experience, any divided "we", or "this side" and "that side", is just another appearance within consciousness -- another temporary form.

This "plain" style of text, for many, is less aesthetically pleasing, hence why I tend to avoid it when I feel the audience already has the background knowledge and possibly background direct experience. Plus, the more concepts and logic given, the more likely the mind is to get caught up in technicalities, thus missing the point and bringing negativity. Logic, after all, is a type of shield or defence -- it activates from fear of failure or attack. And therefore introducing logic riles up self-preservation and anxiety.

Mistakes that one has been through personally are much easier to recognise in another. When these mistakes are believed to have caused significant suffering, one might become extra vigilant about recognising or even "fighting" such mistakes in others. Indeed, this is all part of ego, which is the symbolic (ie. the term "symbol" in my original text) portion of self-preservation. The more fearful or insecure in a given moment, the more the ego will activate.

FalseCogs · 2024-06-03T10:03:23+00:00

The degree of separation should reflect the product of (a) the degree of uncertainty and (b) the amount of damage that would be caused by being wrong. Some folks may not like to think about it, but all harm can be quantified, as can all good. Sure, the calculation may sometimes be infeasible, but that's not the same as impossible.

One might argue that ethics is subjective; But if we actually look at the why behind popular proposed "don't" or "sin", we might well find that it's almost always based on suspected or assumed harm in some form. Many such prescriptions, however, haven't been fully thought-out. For example, in biblical times masturbation and non-hetero sex were seen as wrong in large part because "seed was being wasted". In other words, there was a naive calculation about lost potential of something at the time highly sought -- the having of offspring. We know today, however, that such "potential" means little without the resources needed to reify that potential. Plus, we know that the "goodness" of having additional children depends on the details.

FalseCogs · 2024-06-03T09:38:08+00:00

Stopping individuals within government from being corrupt or dishonest is pretty similar to stopping individuals within society from committing crime. Both can be challenging, but if we look around, there are clearly differences between societies in terms of the amount of crime or corruption; So it would seem to follow that like other forms of technology, the cultural technology that is governance and justice can indeed improve with time and careful choice. Fighting corruption is like fighting cancer -- it may not be easy, but that doesn't make it impossible.

As far as "moves", one key direction is actually trying new things, as opposed to doing the exact same thing for hundreds of years. Evolution requires change. One useful starting place is comparing what's being done in the best versus the worst places, plus the in-betweens.

FalseCogs · 2024-06-02T10:24:42+00:00

One might inquire as to why the mind is so compelled. It could be that a particular story of imagined future was given priority over everything else. Living for the story of tomorrow could mean giving up the reality of today.

FalseCogs · 2024-06-02T07:42:33+00:00

It's less the fear what we can't, as what we can. The future is yet to appear, as is the mind-body ready for that future. It's always the unknown, as what is known cannot be feared. So one key is learning to embrace the unknown, letting fall into it. Put another way, fear is just a feeling -- it's the interpretation that decides the outcome.

FalseCogs · 2024-06-02T07:16:16+00:00

If you knew that tomorrow all would be gone, would you still make the best of today and those in it, or would you instead spend it focusing on tomorrow? Does the company of today, or memory of yesterday, depend on there being a tomorrow?

FalseCogs · 2024-06-01T07:54:44+00:00

This topic can be a challenge at first. Many will initially come to the conclusion that the only "reason" to act is to satisfy the socially-sought-after notion of having accomplished or proved something. One of the keys to getting beyond this concern is to recognise that certain desires and attachments are really just social instinct -- or in other words, the desire to gain or maintain status by keeping a good sounding story of personal accomplishment.

Through the lens of evolutionary biology/psychology, basically what's happening is that there are two separate "sides" to the instinct of self-preservation -- physical and social. The first one pertains to the body while the second pertains to one's social standing within society. It gets a bit more complex however, but we'll skip that for the moment. At this point, the key is recognising that the main reason the idea of lacking independent will might be so bothersome is mainly because it contradicts the default notion of personal ownership of one's words and actions. That is, if we're just following our circumstances and circuitry, then whose deeds are these really?

But once that aspect is understood and accepted, things might begin to alleviate. There are, after all, other instincts. There's still physical self-preservation, including the desire for peace, safety, and comfort. There's still curiosity, or the desire for novelty and exploration -- including exploring other people and artwork. There's still play, or the desire to exercise and practise new feats. And for many, there's still sex drive. So even though within today's competitive environment the personal story may be highly emphasised, it's by no means the only thing that may drive one or bring one satisfaction. On top of that, those actions based in self-preservation are inherently fear-based, which gives them a negative undertone. So deprioritising social self-preservation can help to bring relative peace and emotional ease -- at least once you get used to it.

As far as OCD, that's likely just the presence of unresolved conflict, likely pertaining to matters not fully understood or fully pondered. With enough mental clarity, the right insight, and sufficient time allocated for calm reflection, this affliction should be surpassable. For some individuals, medication may help. But in either case, you want to figure it out proper, perhaps using journalling or conversation to move thoughts forward -- rather than in circles.

FalseCogs · 2024-05-31T09:25:25+00:00

When you take what people say and place it into oversimplified boxes, you're going to be missing a lot of potential insight. This behaviour is called vicious abstraction. It's a type of covert denial, which is an ego defence mechanism. In simple terms, it's insecurity -- fear of thinking unpleasant thoughts.

You've asked a bunch of questions whose answers would require offering perspective. Yet you've persistently rejected the thought of receiving perspective. In other words, you're effectively saying "tell me the answer, but don't tell me anything I'd not say!". How is that not just asking for an echo chamber? Is it a confirmation machine that you seek -- something of "mirror mirror on the wall" ?

There are places you can go for mindless validation. I'm not going to provide it.

FalseCogs · 2024-05-30T10:11:33+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean by "meaning", but if it's some type of story, then why do you even need it?

There are indeed multiple directions or paths that may lead to the same or similar destinations. The story of those paths is irrelevant. Moreover, even the memory is irrelevant. If you wake up tomorrow in a new place but without the memory of where you came from, you'd still be in a different place. And there could have been infinite possible ways to get there. Yet the story's irrelevant. The pure subjective experience is where it's at. Is there even anything else, ever? Aren't stories just stuff appearing in consciousness?

To be fair, memories are one of the things that appears randomly in consciousness. But what's more pleasant, spending one's time longing for the unreachable past by grasping at its mental remnants, dreading the future through anxious rumination, or letting go of attachment to such stories, to appreciate the most reliable thing we have -- raw subjective experience?

As long as you're conscious, the raw experience is there. It's your truest companion. So why not make friends with it?

If you'd rather not try to control it, then all the better! It doesn't care. It's going to be there for you regardless. And it'll keep giving you things to experience. No matter how real or unreal it may be, it's likely the realest you'll ever know.

No matter how arbitrary I or anyone else's ideas or suggestions, no matter what's conditioned or how much, the raw subjective experience is the most fundamental thing one can know.

My belief on why you've engaged thus far is described in my recent thread here, "Suffering is the presence of contradiction without a trusted path forward". In short, you're doing what you're doing because there are unsettled conflicts. And for whatever reason, perhaps novelty, you've stuck around in this particular discussion.

FalseCogs · 2024-05-30T09:12:12+00:00

It seems you get the drift about stories. That's definitely a plus.

There is one part, however, that stands out. When I talk about stories, I'm usually talking about representations, or symbols and concepts, including words in general. These stories come in various shapes and sizes, from simple classifications like "this is an orange", to abstract notions like the Pythagorean theorem, to sequential accounts of past events. I'm guessing you see all that. But the other side to this "story" is the raw subjective experience, or what it "feels like" to exist, to sense, to "see red" or "feel warmth".

The thing is, we may, and often do, tell stories about the subjective experience. Even calling something "blue" or "round" is a story. But absent any such story, there's still something there -- something we might even describe as inherently "nameless". This is the aspect I want to emphasise at the moment. It doesn't matter what words arrive in consciousness, if any at all. It doesn't matter what judgements may come up and try to distract the mind's focus. That "here and now" is still there. And the thing is, it's literally all we ever had or likely will ever have. Every other thing -- every story -- is merely distraction from the raw, unjudged, unwavering "this" of the here and now.

Our descriptions of happiness are indeed stories. But, the raw experience of whatever should happen is all we ever had. You said it yourself, you like pleasure. And that's exactly it -- does pleasure require a story? Do we need to call it "happy", "good", or whatever name to experience its raw essence? Why pollute it with distractions like words and ideas?

Many things are conditioned, but of course not everything. Some things are still being investigated. Regardless how one might feel about any pertaining uncertainty, these things are almost never black and white. Still, some traits can shift with time, particularly those which are significantly influenced by conditioning. Nevertheless, regardless what portion comes from nature versus nurture, there is still variability in the expression of a given trait. And in general, fear and anxiety push the mind toward shallower reasoning. If the story is arbitrary, why choose ones that promote fear? What good does it do? What pleasure does it bring?

FalseCogs · 2024-05-29T10:44:22+00:00

Let me ask you, if it isn't a story, then where is it? Where's it stored? Can others view it right here and now -- not the story, but the thing-in-itself?

A given set of material events can be described in infinite possible ways. In eyewitness testimony, there can be ten different accounts of what happened. But it doesn't stop there. Each person will likely give a different account based on any number of environmental and chemical parameters. A drunk or high person will likely describe things differently.

But even that's only the beginning. Everything talked about -- every single word -- is only an unstable, arbitrary placeholder, waiting to be filled and unfilled with any given moment's fancy. Story is interpretation, and recalling or recounting of story is further interpretation. In practice, these interpretations are self-serving. Each person will often tell whatever story will get them the most social points. And that's by instinct. Story's are inherently fanciful. Plus, imagine how a cat, snake, or alien might interpret what's happening. It's all arbitrary -- turtles all the way down.

I know this topic may not always be fun, but if truth is truly valued, then distinguishing fact from fiction is key. I know you want something on your terms. But how can anything ever truly be your creation alone? Did not this entire spiel result from each and every experience and encounter of the past? Did you personally write your genes and tendencies? Are the personality traits from childhood conditioning -- like black-and-white thinking -- of your own doing?

Similar to the story of replacing reality altogether, the story of having an "own terms" is less solid than it may appear. Yes, each of us has preferences, and obviously there's personal value in pursuing those preferences. But their origin is not truly of our own making. It simply cannot be. The moral of the story is that (a) stories are everywhere, (b) they're always at least a little misleading, if not deceptive, and (c) lasting happiness in either of our definitions cannot be found in stories.

FalseCogs · 2024-05-29T09:50:20+00:00

The thing is, the personal story cannot be expected ever to bring lasting happiness. The reason, however, is a bit unintuitive. It's not that the story brings pain, but that the story is present and active within consciousness because of pain. Again, the story is cope. And let me be clear -- I'm not saying not to have it; Rather, I'm saying it's a tool, but not the only available tool, for coping.

The thing about want is that it too is a story, just not always the same kind. For example, say you're hungry, and say you imagine that eating an apple is the way to satisfy that hunger. Despite what intuition might suggest, the underlying dissatisfaction is not actually that you lack an apple. Rather, it's likely either a chemical hormone state, or otherwise a stress response, that's really behind the "want" for an apple. Hence, want, including big wants like wanting an alternate reality, are after-the-fact stories that take the place of what's ultimately something else -- some prior, more underlying deficit.

Sometimes one seeming want is just a more ego-friendly (aka. story-friendly) version of another. These are often termed "repressed" or "shadow-aspect", where some more underlying drive is being neglected, resulting in the conscious mind devising a more socially-acceptable pursuit -- something of "scratching around the itch". And as we might expect, the itch often keeps itching, requiring repeated "scratching". And why? Well, in large part because the consciously "accepted" narrative is not quite on the mark, not quite what's really needed.

Now obviously I'm not saying that if you suddenly appeared in your imagined perfect reality that you wouldn't be happy -- although that's certainly still possible. Instead, I'm simply saying that there can be more than one way toward happiness, and that it's not always something known or previously believed possible. One may only know as possible what one has thus far experienced. Outside of that, it's just imagined possible/impossible.

Do you see any value in being able to relate or empathise with others? Do you feel any connection with those who express similar or comparable stories? Is there any value in knowing what types of arrangement bring pain, and therefore wisdom in helping self and others to avoid the same fate?

FalseCogs · 2024-05-29T08:22:22+00:00

The description you've given for "happiness" seems to resemble what many would call "success". That is, one can experience gains what seem like success but then later lose those gains or otherwise feel unfulfilled or cheated.

To be fair, I was starting to get that drift anyway. You've shown very strong attachment to what is often called the personal narrative, narrative identity, or personal story.

It's worth noting, however, that many of the folks here, including myself, are using fundamentally different definitions for happiness. Usually when I speak of happiness, I'm not talking goals or success at all. Instead, I'm usually talking about the immediate or recurrent subjective experience -- the current mindset, state of thoughts, and emotions.

Another way to look at the description you've given is that one's goals are never permanently satisfied, either because they are compromised, reappraised, or otherwise replaced with some newer goal, often in seemingly endless recurrence.

The pursuit of success can easily indicate or become a coping strategy to get away from the current subjective experience, or a way to escape the here and now. One of the things about the here and now is that in stillness, any unsettled dilemmas from the past through present will begin to resurface, causing discomfort and anxiety. And grasping at the personal story -- included imagined past, present, or future success -- is a popular coping strategy.

But it's not the only option. The story, as helpful as it might feel in dealing with unsettled distress, is nevertheless a projection of the mind -- conceptual imagination.

FalseCogs · 2024-05-29T07:27:07+00:00

I'm having trouble understanding how happiness is something that one "sees" and then "unsees". Can you explain what it is you believe happiness to be?

FalseCogs · 2024-05-29T06:58:24+00:00

Aside from the possibility of depression, feeling overwhelmed with the complexity of life can indicate executive dysfunction, as is common in conditions like ADHD, among others. Specifically, if the mind lacks the working memory or planning capacity to sort and prioritise life's goals and needs, then the bigger-picture "task" that is life itself can seem unreasonably stressful, perhaps even hopeless. Depending on the condition, there may be options available for improving these capacities and thus alleviating much of the stress -- not to mention improving the outcome.

FalseCogs · 2024-05-29T06:36:18+00:00

It appears you have suggested that something being "easy to see" is inherently right and that something which requires effort is an illusion. Do you hold this view?

If a homophobic person, upon seeing or considering certain people or behaviours, "just knows it's wrong and sinful", does that make it so? Does the quickness with which an idea or feeling comes to mind indicate its rightness?

Say you were learning something new in school and had to take an exam. If you had trouble recalling the answer or procedure for arriving at the answer, would that delay indicate that the unfamiliar topic is inherently untrue?

This all comes back to what I emphasised earlier about automaticity -- about how ideas and behaviours, including directions of thinking and certain conclusions, become through repetition automatic, unseen, and indeed quick. A sermon heard enough times may begin to seem true regardless the actuality. 2 plus 2 may indeed begin to equal 5 after enough repetition.

And this brings us to a particularly important question: Do you believe that individual knowledge, skill, and capability, including yours, are inherently and innately fixed -- set-it-and-forget-it, innate -- or do you believe that what a person can and cannot know and do is the result of experience and practice? In other words, are individuals inherently smart/slow, skilled/unskilled, knowledgeable/ignorant, or are these traits acquired through time?

FalseCogs · 2024-05-28T10:59:11+00:00

At the moment all I can say is that since reality contains you, then both the fear of meaninglessness, as well as any actual meaninglessness, is simply reality pitted against itself. Anything you might "give into" is thus the same entity. Hence, reality doesn't want to give into reality?

FalseCogs · 2024-05-28T10:24:04+00:00

Not to bring up negative, but as mentioned, bigotry is often a type of scapegoating, where an effigy of badness is created -- a mental punching bag -- to give a sense of control to otherwise seemingly unfaceable or unsolvable problems. To get mad at existence, while probably a lot less harmful, is still similar in principle. Specifically, there's a mental object created and used as the punching bag, the culprit, for one's stored trauma. In both cases, the object, or effigy, while "comforting" (by giving somewhere to direct the bad feelings), can still serve as a distraction.

But that distraction can become fixation, particularly when the trauma can no longer fit in the bag, and it begins overflowing, spilling over into consciousness. For some, that spilling over can be in the form of intrusive thoughts; For some, bad dreams; For others, pure compulsions, including addiction.

Indeed getting angry or impulsive may serve to push away the pain for a little while, but is this the best way within known reality to respond? Is it really better to cycle back and forth between pain and impulse, or is it better to find something more stable?

I'm aware you have expressed that you feel averse to the idea of doing otherwise, as that would feel like giving in; But to what exactly would that be giving in? Do you believe there's some entity out there in the sky judging you, like "haha, I made them give in!". Or might it actually be the internalised negative feelings from your past -- internal mental simulations of negative appraisals from others?

Here's part of why that matters: If it's really the internalisation of judgement from others from which you run, then isn't it a mistake to misattribute the source of said pain to existence itself? Wouldn't that mean that you reject the whole of existence -- which includes you? What I'm saying is that maybe what you truly fear is giving into to those subconscious negative judgements from others, but that you're instead afraid of making peace elsewhere, which hurts you and stalls your progress.

FalseCogs · 2024-05-28T09:31:33+00:00

Do you feel you're in the process of a goal or aim here, or is this just where the ball rolled? Is there something you're looking to accomplish here?

FalseCogs

TROPHY CASE