Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Sunday, June 7, 2009
free will versus predetermination... is there any middle ground?
this is a transcription of a philosophical discussion that took place on facebook recently. there's nothing like a little bit of "facebook philosophy" to get the mind churning. enjoy...
Aaron Montgomery
??
??
Josh Steinkoetter
absolutely...We have a predetermined destiny but without knowing that destiny we act on free will with every choice we make.
absolutely...We have a predetermined destiny but without knowing that destiny we act on free will with every choice we make.
Erik Muir
but is it really free will, or just the illusion of free will?
but is it really free will, or just the illusion of free will?
Josh Steinkoetter
It's free will because we do not know our destiny..it's predetermination because our creator already knew what our choices will be because he is omniscience and outside of time.
It's free will because we do not know our destiny..it's predetermination because our creator already knew what our choices will be because he is omniscience and outside of time.
Erik Muir
a ball on a pool table doesn't know its own destiny, but yet it cannot choose where it will go once it's been struck. the ball's movement, acceleration, velocity, direction, etc... are predetermined by the laws of physics. just because someone isn't aware of their destiny doesn't automatically mean they are making choices of their own free will, right?
a ball on a pool table doesn't know its own destiny, but yet it cannot choose where it will go once it's been struck. the ball's movement, acceleration, velocity, direction, etc... are predetermined by the laws of physics. just because someone isn't aware of their destiny doesn't automatically mean they are making choices of their own free will, right?
Josh Steinkoetter
your example consists of an inanimate object which has no choice. People, however, make choices every day that affects there lives through use of free will. At the same time, for predetermination to exists there must be another who knows the choice you are going to make. Yes, if i jump from a 50 story building I am predetermined to die from the consequence of that action by use of the laws of physics, but the decisions i made that lead me to jump came from choices I made through use of free will
your example consists of an inanimate object which has no choice. People, however, make choices every day that affects there lives through use of free will. At the same time, for predetermination to exists there must be another who knows the choice you are going to make. Yes, if i jump from a 50 story building I am predetermined to die from the consequence of that action by use of the laws of physics, but the decisions i made that lead me to jump came from choices I made through use of free will
Erik Muir
but some might argue that even the "choice" to jump off a 50 story building was one that was predetermined by several internal and external factors, such as brain chemistry, personality, outside influence, and how your brain chemistry and environmental upbringing influenced how you'll react to certain outside stimuli. they might argue that all of these factors are just variables which can indeed predetermine an outcome, if only there were a way to quantify and compute the necessary information.
but some might argue that even the "choice" to jump off a 50 story building was one that was predetermined by several internal and external factors, such as brain chemistry, personality, outside influence, and how your brain chemistry and environmental upbringing influenced how you'll react to certain outside stimuli. they might argue that all of these factors are just variables which can indeed predetermine an outcome, if only there were a way to quantify and compute the necessary information.
Josh Steinkoetter
Yes, we re influenced by many factors, both external and internal. But when we make a choice, it is only after we calculate what is most rational for us at the time. During even those calculations we are making choices before we make our "choice". Depending on your personal indoctrination will depend how quickly and confident you are in the decision that you make. But even through the indoctrination process we are making choices as to what we will accept as unquestioned truth. To deny that we have free will, though, is to deny that we have a responsibility for our own actions.
Yes, we re influenced by many factors, both external and internal. But when we make a choice, it is only after we calculate what is most rational for us at the time. During even those calculations we are making choices before we make our "choice". Depending on your personal indoctrination will depend how quickly and confident you are in the decision that you make. But even through the indoctrination process we are making choices as to what we will accept as unquestioned truth. To deny that we have free will, though, is to deny that we have a responsibility for our own actions.
Erik Muir
ah, and so we've stumbled upon the crux of the issue: responsibility for our own actions. i think this is where it gets interesting because if our creator has planned our destinies in advance, then wouldn't he hold more of the responsibility rather than us? or are you just suggesting that the creator set forth a set of conditions and rules governing the universe and that humans are the unknown variable which even he has no power over?
ah, and so we've stumbled upon the crux of the issue: responsibility for our own actions. i think this is where it gets interesting because if our creator has planned our destinies in advance, then wouldn't he hold more of the responsibility rather than us? or are you just suggesting that the creator set forth a set of conditions and rules governing the universe and that humans are the unknown variable which even he has no power over?
Aaron Montgomery
who cares... stay in the center...
Terry Weber
Ask a Lutheran. Christ died for all people that all might be saved. But free will allows you to reject that work of salvation.
Ask a Lutheran. Christ died for all people that all might be saved. But free will allows you to reject that work of salvation.
Scotty D
i know i'm late to the party, but i'll throw in my two cents. i do not think predetermination exists at all. if it did, being ignorant to our own predetermined destiny would not mean that we would have free will. it would only mean we were not aware of our lack of free will. assuming for a moment that the universe was created by a god that will send you to heaven or hell depending on your beliefs, i would find it very morbid that this god knows ahead of time who s/he is damning to hell for all eternity. if s/he knows what will happen, then your choices are an illusion. you may THINK they are free will, but that's only because you don't know any better. i would think life a rather sad existence if this were the case. thankfully, i don't think it is.
Annie Spear
There is no "versus," it's both. We have free will, but there is "foreknowledge" of God that allows him to predetermine our lives, since he is outside of time, he already knows what we will choose.
There is no "versus," it's both. We have free will, but there is "foreknowledge" of God that allows him to predetermine our lives, since he is outside of time, he already knows what we will choose.
Erik Muir
oh, how convenient for god... "outside of time". geez, i wish i could be outside of time. you know, just for like a few hours or so. ;)
Scotty D
i maintain that if the events of our lives are predetermined by god, then free will cannot exist. god may or may not exist "outside of time" (a realm we have no way of exploring and therefore do not know anything about), but WE most certainly do not. so from my point of view, all of the time leading up to a choice that i make, i am considered to be "undecided" in that choice. except that in all of my "undecided" time, god would be sitting right beside me already knowing what my choice would be. in this hypothetical situation, god must, at the very least, exist "inside of time" if god wants to interact with our physical universe. so, every minute that i debate this choice in my mind, god already knows what my choice will be. my choices would have been chosen for me...so to speak. no matter how much analysis i put into it, god's choice is the only one that could possibly exist by theological determination's standards. thus, free will would not exist.
i maintain that if the events of our lives are predetermined by god, then free will cannot exist. god may or may not exist "outside of time" (a realm we have no way of exploring and therefore do not know anything about), but WE most certainly do not. so from my point of view, all of the time leading up to a choice that i make, i am considered to be "undecided" in that choice. except that in all of my "undecided" time, god would be sitting right beside me already knowing what my choice would be. in this hypothetical situation, god must, at the very least, exist "inside of time" if god wants to interact with our physical universe. so, every minute that i debate this choice in my mind, god already knows what my choice will be. my choices would have been chosen for me...so to speak. no matter how much analysis i put into it, god's choice is the only one that could possibly exist by theological determination's standards. thus, free will would not exist.
Erik Muir
also, i think some people think that predetermination is an excuse to not take responsibility for one's actions. but i think it's obvious that we should carefully consider every choice we make, thoroughly weighing the consequences before making the choice. i don't believe we'd have the capacity to do this if we weren't supposed to use it. but our ability and responsibility to do this doesn't inherently mean that it's free will and that everything isn't predetermined already.
also, i think some people think that predetermination is an excuse to not take responsibility for one's actions. but i think it's obvious that we should carefully consider every choice we make, thoroughly weighing the consequences before making the choice. i don't believe we'd have the capacity to do this if we weren't supposed to use it. but our ability and responsibility to do this doesn't inherently mean that it's free will and that everything isn't predetermined already.
Erik Muir
taking the discussion to a different place, "all this has happened before and will happen again" is the creed from battlestar galactica, but it also hints at the "quantum bounce" theory that the universe is not just expanding, but perpetually expanding and contracting, and that the universe as we know it might have already happened innumerable times before. if this is the case, does each iteration of the universe happen exactly the same or is each one unique? the answer would probably tell us more about free will and predetermination.
Scotty D
my guess is that if the big bounce theory were correct, then each iteration would be different. given the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, i would think the likelihood of *everything* turning out *exactly* the same (down to each sub-atomic particle!) would be extremely low. on a related note, i'd like to point out the "many-worlds theory" which says that there exists a multiverse, made up of many many parallel universes. quantum mechanics says that you can't (for the most part) get an exact value for a measurement of a particle (position for example). you can only get the probability that the value will be a certain number. in the many-worlds theory, the particle would have ALL possible values - each parallel universe is entangled with one value. if we extrapolate this concept to a macro level, then what if each parallel universe contains a different version of US. maybe we choose EVERY option - one choice in each universe, much like the value for a particle. maybe we just observe one of these parallel universes and perceive it as a single choice. maybe predetermination to god just means that god can see ALL of these parallel universes and so knows ALL outcomes of ALL choices. maybe god (being outside of spacetime) doesn't differentiate between the parallel versions of each one of us. but our perceived conciousness is a single-universe creature who can only see one universe and interpret this as "choice" when maybe its just the probability of an outcome in OUR universe.
taking the discussion to a different place, "all this has happened before and will happen again" is the creed from battlestar galactica, but it also hints at the "quantum bounce" theory that the universe is not just expanding, but perpetually expanding and contracting, and that the universe as we know it might have already happened innumerable times before. if this is the case, does each iteration of the universe happen exactly the same or is each one unique? the answer would probably tell us more about free will and predetermination.
Scotty D
my guess is that if the big bounce theory were correct, then each iteration would be different. given the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, i would think the likelihood of *everything* turning out *exactly* the same (down to each sub-atomic particle!) would be extremely low. on a related note, i'd like to point out the "many-worlds theory" which says that there exists a multiverse, made up of many many parallel universes. quantum mechanics says that you can't (for the most part) get an exact value for a measurement of a particle (position for example). you can only get the probability that the value will be a certain number. in the many-worlds theory, the particle would have ALL possible values - each parallel universe is entangled with one value. if we extrapolate this concept to a macro level, then what if each parallel universe contains a different version of US. maybe we choose EVERY option - one choice in each universe, much like the value for a particle. maybe we just observe one of these parallel universes and perceive it as a single choice. maybe predetermination to god just means that god can see ALL of these parallel universes and so knows ALL outcomes of ALL choices. maybe god (being outside of spacetime) doesn't differentiate between the parallel versions of each one of us. but our perceived conciousness is a single-universe creature who can only see one universe and interpret this as "choice" when maybe its just the probability of an outcome in OUR universe.
Erik Muir
to me, there would need to be an infinite number of universes for the multiverse theory to be correct. my mind just tells me that there's either one universe or infinite universes. why would there be only 14, ya know? and with infinite universes, there would obviously be several that resembled ours, where our "counterparts" had made different choices and experienced different timelines. but there would also be universes where the properties of the fundamental forces (strong/weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force) would be so far out of whack from our universe that they would never create a stable enough environment to allow life to even exist at all (which gets into an existential debate). this doesn't have much to do with free will vs. predetermination, but i just thought i'd mention it since you brought it up, scott.
to me, there would need to be an infinite number of universes for the multiverse theory to be correct. my mind just tells me that there's either one universe or infinite universes. why would there be only 14, ya know? and with infinite universes, there would obviously be several that resembled ours, where our "counterparts" had made different choices and experienced different timelines. but there would also be universes where the properties of the fundamental forces (strong/weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force) would be so far out of whack from our universe that they would never create a stable enough environment to allow life to even exist at all (which gets into an existential debate). this doesn't have much to do with free will vs. predetermination, but i just thought i'd mention it since you brought it up, scott.
Scotty D
yes, i agree with you that there would probably be an infinite number of parallel universes in the multiverse. i'm pretty sure this is what the many-worlds theory states. and regarding your point on the universes that wouldn't support life, this is addressed in the anthropic principle. it basically says that, from our point of view, our universe appears to be fine-tuned to support life, but that's only because if our universe did not have these specific life-supporting characteristics, then we wouldn't be around to observe it. if the multiverse theory is true, the vast majority of these universes probably wouldn't support life since it takes such a precise balance of so many variables. anyway, hope i didn't go too far off topic with that whole many-worlds thing - i'd never really thought about the deterministic/free will aspect that way until we got into this discussion. probably the most interesting facebook status (and ensuing conversation) i've seen yet. thanks, erik!
yes, i agree with you that there would probably be an infinite number of parallel universes in the multiverse. i'm pretty sure this is what the many-worlds theory states. and regarding your point on the universes that wouldn't support life, this is addressed in the anthropic principle. it basically says that, from our point of view, our universe appears to be fine-tuned to support life, but that's only because if our universe did not have these specific life-supporting characteristics, then we wouldn't be around to observe it. if the multiverse theory is true, the vast majority of these universes probably wouldn't support life since it takes such a precise balance of so many variables. anyway, hope i didn't go too far off topic with that whole many-worlds thing - i'd never really thought about the deterministic/free will aspect that way until we got into this discussion. probably the most interesting facebook status (and ensuing conversation) i've seen yet. thanks, erik!
Annie Spear
You guys are way smarter than me, I is dumb, but there is one thing I'm adamant about and that's that everything that happens is supposed to happen and I'm adamant about that because if that's untrue I'll hang myself, so don't dissuade me! Here's the thing, you remember the past, right? You had free will then, and now you know what choices you made. Mathematically past and future are equal right? We don't know why we remember the past and not the future, so if they're equal then because we do remember the past the way it happened we will one day remember what is today the future only one way. As to whether these things were "meant" to happen, what does it matter? I personally believe that they were because that's what saves my life everyday, but either way, "what happened, happened," you can't change the past, so you can't change the future. But we still have free will, it's just that it's all already happened and we're just experiencing in a line.
You guys are way smarter than me, I is dumb, but there is one thing I'm adamant about and that's that everything that happens is supposed to happen and I'm adamant about that because if that's untrue I'll hang myself, so don't dissuade me! Here's the thing, you remember the past, right? You had free will then, and now you know what choices you made. Mathematically past and future are equal right? We don't know why we remember the past and not the future, so if they're equal then because we do remember the past the way it happened we will one day remember what is today the future only one way. As to whether these things were "meant" to happen, what does it matter? I personally believe that they were because that's what saves my life everyday, but either way, "what happened, happened," you can't change the past, so you can't change the future. But we still have free will, it's just that it's all already happened and we're just experiencing in a line.
Erik Muir
ah! hence the recent developments in the television show LOST. their point is not only that we can't change our past, but that we can't change our futures either. i'm beginning to see. i remember reading "a brief history of time" by stephen hawking and he theorized that since we experience time in a linear fashion, that's the only way we can understand it. but the universe might be contracting as we speak rather than expanding. and if it were, time would in essence be moving backwards, but our minds would perceive it as forwards. meaning that it's impossible to know whether the future is ahead of us or if it's already happened. in the words of lauryn hill: "everything is everything - what is meant to be will be."
ah! hence the recent developments in the television show LOST. their point is not only that we can't change our past, but that we can't change our futures either. i'm beginning to see. i remember reading "a brief history of time" by stephen hawking and he theorized that since we experience time in a linear fashion, that's the only way we can understand it. but the universe might be contracting as we speak rather than expanding. and if it were, time would in essence be moving backwards, but our minds would perceive it as forwards. meaning that it's impossible to know whether the future is ahead of us or if it's already happened. in the words of lauryn hill: "everything is everything - what is meant to be will be."
Scotty D
i prefer dr. emmett l. brown's theory on time travel. if you could go back in time, you'd be able to change anything you want. by doing so, you'd move to a new time line and begin traveling normally through time on this new time line. the original one may still exist (parallel universe?), but by changing something you'd have left it. *spoileralert* i have a few problems with the time line as its depicted in lost. first, if the past couldn't be changed (from the losties point of view), then they'd truly have no choice. for instance sayid couldn't choose to kill ben (btw, does this make ben invincible in 1977?). and i don't mean TRY to kill ben, i mean stand there and make sure he's dead. my second problem is that the very act of going back would change things...even if its only on a molecular level. photons bounce differently, your body exists where "empty space" should have existed. like the butterfly effect. ya know, a butterfly flaps its wings in brazil and texas gets a tornado.
Erik Muir
unless their "present" was the already altered timeline created by going back in time in the first place. a causation loop paradox. in regards to dr. brown's theory, let's say i travel back in time 10 yrs. the present would now be "erik-less", and the past would have two eriks (the 29yo time-traveling "me" and the indigenous 19yo "me"). then, let's say i interfered in the timeline, taking actions which would change the course of my life. i could never return to the "present" because by altering the past i immediately started existing in a new parallel universe. so if i did travel forward 10 yrs in time, there would still be two eriks (the 29yo time-traveling "me" and the 29yo non-time-traveling "me"). so in order to live the life i tried to make for myself, i'd have to kill the other erik and take his place. this actually helps me to better understand one of my favorite movies of all time: primer. if you haven't seen it you should.. you'd love it!
unless their "present" was the already altered timeline created by going back in time in the first place. a causation loop paradox. in regards to dr. brown's theory, let's say i travel back in time 10 yrs. the present would now be "erik-less", and the past would have two eriks (the 29yo time-traveling "me" and the indigenous 19yo "me"). then, let's say i interfered in the timeline, taking actions which would change the course of my life. i could never return to the "present" because by altering the past i immediately started existing in a new parallel universe. so if i did travel forward 10 yrs in time, there would still be two eriks (the 29yo time-traveling "me" and the 29yo non-time-traveling "me"). so in order to live the life i tried to make for myself, i'd have to kill the other erik and take his place. this actually helps me to better understand one of my favorite movies of all time: primer. if you haven't seen it you should.. you'd love it!
Scotty D
yeah...those nasty paradoxes. i try to avoid them when i can. maybe they'll try to introduce something to get around that next season. good point about the time-traveling you! it would be a very odd experience to kill yourself. interesting moral question. and yes, primer is one of my favorites as well. i actually went so far as to send copies to tom and jeff the day after i watched it. seemed like one of those movies you could discuss for hours on end. the note i included in each one i wrote with my left hand so it looked like their handwriting in the movie. wow...i'm a nerd.
yeah...those nasty paradoxes. i try to avoid them when i can. maybe they'll try to introduce something to get around that next season. good point about the time-traveling you! it would be a very odd experience to kill yourself. interesting moral question. and yes, primer is one of my favorites as well. i actually went so far as to send copies to tom and jeff the day after i watched it. seemed like one of those movies you could discuss for hours on end. the note i included in each one i wrote with my left hand so it looked like their handwriting in the movie. wow...i'm a nerd.
Debbie Muir
Erik the imagination is a great thing, God given, and you have been blessed with a great imagination. Don't let it steal the truth from you.
Friday, June 5, 2009
reprieve from desperation
"what is one to do when the only thing that brings reprieve from desperation causes even more in the end? logically, i suppose it would be better to endure the initial level of desperation for an entire lifetime than to increase the level for short glimpses of life without it. but the thought of an entire lifetime devoid of any enjoyment is the one thing i fear most in this world. if i'm destined to suffer, i might as well have moments of relief along the way to make the suffering worth enduring."
this is how i think much of the time. i guess the fallacy to begin with is that i am indeed destined to suffer for an entire lifetime. people always tell me that it won't always be like that. but i often feel that's like telling someone who's been blind from birth that someday they'll see. they've been given no reason to think that they'll ever gain the use of their eyes. had their blindness been interrupted by short spurts of sight throughout life, then they'd have reason to hope that someday their sight might return for good. but a life of sustained blindness leads one to believe that it's their reality and destiny, and they start to find ways to cope with it.
my problem is that the most effective coping mechanism i've found for my desperation happens to be extremely destructive. i'll be strong for a while, choosing to avoid self-destruction, but it seems i eventually come to a place where the destruction seems worth it for just a short reprieve. i wish i didn't experience this cycle, but it's yet another reality i've been forced to acknowledge. i hope that after it's all said and done that whatever i end up choosing is worth it.
this is how i think much of the time. i guess the fallacy to begin with is that i am indeed destined to suffer for an entire lifetime. people always tell me that it won't always be like that. but i often feel that's like telling someone who's been blind from birth that someday they'll see. they've been given no reason to think that they'll ever gain the use of their eyes. had their blindness been interrupted by short spurts of sight throughout life, then they'd have reason to hope that someday their sight might return for good. but a life of sustained blindness leads one to believe that it's their reality and destiny, and they start to find ways to cope with it.
my problem is that the most effective coping mechanism i've found for my desperation happens to be extremely destructive. i'll be strong for a while, choosing to avoid self-destruction, but it seems i eventually come to a place where the destruction seems worth it for just a short reprieve. i wish i didn't experience this cycle, but it's yet another reality i've been forced to acknowledge. i hope that after it's all said and done that whatever i end up choosing is worth it.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
my very own rubik's cube solution tutorial
so, how many of you have a rubik's cube? how many of you have ever actually solved one without cheating? (and by cheating i mean either peeling all the stickers off and putting them back on or actually taking apart the whole puzzle and reassembling it). after fiddling around with one for quite a while i could never get more than one layer solved on my own, until a friend of mine showed me his method for solving it. once i mastered it i could actually solve one in about 6-7 minutes.
but, of course, i wasn't satisfied with that time so i sought out better methods that would bring my time down even lower. there are some rubik's enthusiasts who can solve it in under 30 seconds without breaking a sweat, but in order to do that you must memorize hundreds of algorithms for hundreds of different permutations. this seemed a bit too daunting of a task, so i then sought out the quickest solution with the least amount of algorithms to memorize as possible. i believe that i've found it.
below is a link to a tutorial i wrote on this solution, which is a mish-mash of several different methods i've seen on the internet, but reworked in a way that made more sense to me and my brain. and the greatest part is that it requires the memorization of only 6 algorithms instead of hundreds! my average solution time is about 2 minutes now and i'm satisfied with it for the time being. i've been told that were i to purchase something called "rube lube", which is a silicon based lubricant, that i could probably shave off several more seconds from my average time, but i'm a bit too cheap to actually spend money on something like that.
so please, anyone who's up to the challenge should go dig up your old cube, or buy a new one from wal-mart for about $10, and start getting familiar with it. this method will help anyone to solve the cube who can at least do the first layer on their own. if you can't do that, just keep trying. or if you're so inclined you can probably find many websites devoted to helping you through the logic of solving the first layer. good luck! and let me know if the tutorial is too confusing or if there are typos or mistakes. i want to make it as complete as possible.
link: my very own rubik's cube solution tutorial
but, of course, i wasn't satisfied with that time so i sought out better methods that would bring my time down even lower. there are some rubik's enthusiasts who can solve it in under 30 seconds without breaking a sweat, but in order to do that you must memorize hundreds of algorithms for hundreds of different permutations. this seemed a bit too daunting of a task, so i then sought out the quickest solution with the least amount of algorithms to memorize as possible. i believe that i've found it.
below is a link to a tutorial i wrote on this solution, which is a mish-mash of several different methods i've seen on the internet, but reworked in a way that made more sense to me and my brain. and the greatest part is that it requires the memorization of only 6 algorithms instead of hundreds! my average solution time is about 2 minutes now and i'm satisfied with it for the time being. i've been told that were i to purchase something called "rube lube", which is a silicon based lubricant, that i could probably shave off several more seconds from my average time, but i'm a bit too cheap to actually spend money on something like that.
so please, anyone who's up to the challenge should go dig up your old cube, or buy a new one from wal-mart for about $10, and start getting familiar with it. this method will help anyone to solve the cube who can at least do the first layer on their own. if you can't do that, just keep trying. or if you're so inclined you can probably find many websites devoted to helping you through the logic of solving the first layer. good luck! and let me know if the tutorial is too confusing or if there are typos or mistakes. i want to make it as complete as possible.
link: my very own rubik's cube solution tutorial
Thursday, May 7, 2009
control dramas
what i'm about to write is something that's very profound, or at least it was to me when i first discovered it. although i learned about the concept from a book of fiction, i believe there is much truth in it. they say "the truth will set you free," and i believe this has the potential to do just that. it comes from a book called "the celestine prophecy" by james redfield, in which there are several insights that humans need to understand before the human race can attain a higher level of consciousness. this is a summation of some of those insights, which I believe to be very insightful, despite the book's fictitious presentation.
ingesting food is the primary method of gaining physical energy, but this only helps the body and brain to function on a mechanical level. in order to feed the mind, soul and spirit one must obtain a different kind of energy not found in foods. eventually humans will see the universe as comprised of one dynamic energy -- an energy that can sustain us and respond to our expectations -- but we have been disconnected from the larger source of this energy. we have cut ourselves off, and having done so feel weak, insecure and lacking. in the face of this deficit, humans have always sought to increase our personal energy in the only manner we've known: by seeking to psychologically steal it from others, an unconscious competition that underlies all human conflict in the world.
when one person engages another in conversation, one of two things can happen: that person can come away feeling stronger or weaker. we prepare ourselves to say whatever we must in order to prevail in the conversation. each of us seeks to find some way to control and thus remain on top in the encounter. if we are successful, if our viewpoint prevails, then rather than feel weak we receive a psychological boost. when we control another human being we receive their energy. we fill up at the other's expense and the filling up is what motivates us. most people are in a constant hunt for someone else's energy. but humans must learn to gain energy from the universal source, not other humans.
to be open to this universal energy (as opposed to energy stolen from others) you have to connect, to use your sense of appreciation. when you successfully appreciate something, you allow the love that underlies all to enter you. when you appreciate the beauty and uniqueness of things you receive energy. when you get to a level where you feel love, then you can send the energy back just by willing it so. even though an alternative source of energy exists, we really can't stay connected with it until we come to grips with the particular method that we, as individuals, use in stealing others' energy and stop doing it. because whenever we fall back into this habit, we get disconnected from the universal source.
this habit of stealing energy is something we repeat over and over again, and is always unconscious at first. the key to letting it go is to bring it fully into consciousness. this is done by seeing that our particular style of controlling others is one we learned in childhood to get attention, to get the energy moving our way. this style, whatever it may be, is called our unconscious control drama. our parents and siblings operated in a drama themselves, trying to pull energy out of us as children. we had to have a strategy to win energy back. each person must reinterpret their family experience from a spiritual point of view, and discover who they really are. once we do this, we can go past these control dramas and see what is really happening. there are four main control dramas, two aggressive and two passive:
interrogator (aggressive):
sets up a drama of asking questions and probing into another person's world with the specific purpose of finding something wrong. once they do, they criticize this aspect of the other's life. if his strategy succeeds, the person being criticized is pulled into the drama. they find themselves becoming self-conscious around the interrogator and paying attention to what the interrogator is doing and thinking about, so as not to do something wrong that the interrogator would notice. this psychic deference gives the interrogator the energy he desires. interrogators pull you off your own path and drain your energy because you judge yourself by what they might be thinking.
intimidator (aggressive):
someone who threatens you, either verbally or physically. you are forced, for fear of something bad happening to you, to pay attention to them and so to give them energy. this is the most aggressive kind of drama.
poor me (passive):
someone who tells you all the horrible things that are already happening to them, implying perhaps that you are responsible, and that, if you refuse to help, these horrible things are going to continue. someone who makes you feel guilty when you're in their presence, even though you know there is no reason to feel that way. everything they say and do puts you in a place where you have to defend against the idea the you're not doing enough for them.
aloof (passive):
in order to get energy coming their way, they withdraw and look mysterious and secretive. they hope that you will be pulled into their drama and try to figure out what's going on with them. when you do, they remain vague, forcing you to struggle, dig and try to discern their true feelings, giving them your full attention, thus sending your energy to them. the longer they can keep you interested and mystified, the more energy they receive.
people use more than one drama in different circumstances, but most of us have one dominant control drama that we tend to repeat, depending on which one worked well on the members of our early family. a person goes to whatever extreme necessary to get attention energy in their family. and it turns out that more times than not an individual's control drama will be the inverse of their parent's drama.
ingesting food is the primary method of gaining physical energy, but this only helps the body and brain to function on a mechanical level. in order to feed the mind, soul and spirit one must obtain a different kind of energy not found in foods. eventually humans will see the universe as comprised of one dynamic energy -- an energy that can sustain us and respond to our expectations -- but we have been disconnected from the larger source of this energy. we have cut ourselves off, and having done so feel weak, insecure and lacking. in the face of this deficit, humans have always sought to increase our personal energy in the only manner we've known: by seeking to psychologically steal it from others, an unconscious competition that underlies all human conflict in the world.
when one person engages another in conversation, one of two things can happen: that person can come away feeling stronger or weaker. we prepare ourselves to say whatever we must in order to prevail in the conversation. each of us seeks to find some way to control and thus remain on top in the encounter. if we are successful, if our viewpoint prevails, then rather than feel weak we receive a psychological boost. when we control another human being we receive their energy. we fill up at the other's expense and the filling up is what motivates us. most people are in a constant hunt for someone else's energy. but humans must learn to gain energy from the universal source, not other humans.
to be open to this universal energy (as opposed to energy stolen from others) you have to connect, to use your sense of appreciation. when you successfully appreciate something, you allow the love that underlies all to enter you. when you appreciate the beauty and uniqueness of things you receive energy. when you get to a level where you feel love, then you can send the energy back just by willing it so. even though an alternative source of energy exists, we really can't stay connected with it until we come to grips with the particular method that we, as individuals, use in stealing others' energy and stop doing it. because whenever we fall back into this habit, we get disconnected from the universal source.
this habit of stealing energy is something we repeat over and over again, and is always unconscious at first. the key to letting it go is to bring it fully into consciousness. this is done by seeing that our particular style of controlling others is one we learned in childhood to get attention, to get the energy moving our way. this style, whatever it may be, is called our unconscious control drama. our parents and siblings operated in a drama themselves, trying to pull energy out of us as children. we had to have a strategy to win energy back. each person must reinterpret their family experience from a spiritual point of view, and discover who they really are. once we do this, we can go past these control dramas and see what is really happening. there are four main control dramas, two aggressive and two passive:
interrogator (aggressive):
sets up a drama of asking questions and probing into another person's world with the specific purpose of finding something wrong. once they do, they criticize this aspect of the other's life. if his strategy succeeds, the person being criticized is pulled into the drama. they find themselves becoming self-conscious around the interrogator and paying attention to what the interrogator is doing and thinking about, so as not to do something wrong that the interrogator would notice. this psychic deference gives the interrogator the energy he desires. interrogators pull you off your own path and drain your energy because you judge yourself by what they might be thinking.
intimidator (aggressive):
someone who threatens you, either verbally or physically. you are forced, for fear of something bad happening to you, to pay attention to them and so to give them energy. this is the most aggressive kind of drama.
poor me (passive):
someone who tells you all the horrible things that are already happening to them, implying perhaps that you are responsible, and that, if you refuse to help, these horrible things are going to continue. someone who makes you feel guilty when you're in their presence, even though you know there is no reason to feel that way. everything they say and do puts you in a place where you have to defend against the idea the you're not doing enough for them.
aloof (passive):
in order to get energy coming their way, they withdraw and look mysterious and secretive. they hope that you will be pulled into their drama and try to figure out what's going on with them. when you do, they remain vague, forcing you to struggle, dig and try to discern their true feelings, giving them your full attention, thus sending your energy to them. the longer they can keep you interested and mystified, the more energy they receive.
people use more than one drama in different circumstances, but most of us have one dominant control drama that we tend to repeat, depending on which one worked well on the members of our early family. a person goes to whatever extreme necessary to get attention energy in their family. and it turns out that more times than not an individual's control drama will be the inverse of their parent's drama.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
abecedarius
in poetry, an acrostic is a poem in which the first letters of successive lines form a recognizable pattern. one specific type of acrostic is an abecedarius, which is an acrostic in which the first letter of each line follows the order of an alphabet. this literary device is found in several places throughout the old testament of the bible (psalms, proverbs, and lamentations). this is only evident when read in the original hebrew text since it uses the hebrew alphabet.
well, many years ago when i first learned of this poetic device i immediately had to compose a poem using it. of course, i don't know hebrew so i just used plain ol' english. i had to cheat on the third from last line. i didn't want to be forced to use xerox, xenophobic or x-ray, so i decided that as long as the word started with the 'ex' sound that i'd let it slide. here is what i came up with:
well, many years ago when i first learned of this poetic device i immediately had to compose a poem using it. of course, i don't know hebrew so i just used plain ol' english. i had to cheat on the third from last line. i didn't want to be forced to use xerox, xenophobic or x-ray, so i decided that as long as the word started with the 'ex' sound that i'd let it slide. here is what i came up with:
a constellation of memories
blowing, tangled, through the breeze
catching wind and racing leaves
dancing through the maze of trees
every twist and turn is planned
far beyond the dawn of man
gods and goblins 'cross the land
have yet to fully understand
if knowing is really half the battle
just give me a mind, a horse, and saddle
knowledge is the road to bliss, and
love is more than just a kiss
memories condensed and scattered
never speak of high hopes shattered
only certain frames of mind
perceive the images of time
quietly they chant in rhyme
rebellion is the nature of these
self-degrading tendancies
though never seen with conscious eyes
understand these are not lies
vicious screams and tender sighs
whispered dreams and heartfelt cries
extremely real yet you can not see
you can not touch eternity
zestfully you plea to be free
blowing, tangled, through the breeze
catching wind and racing leaves
dancing through the maze of trees
every twist and turn is planned
far beyond the dawn of man
gods and goblins 'cross the land
have yet to fully understand
if knowing is really half the battle
just give me a mind, a horse, and saddle
knowledge is the road to bliss, and
love is more than just a kiss
memories condensed and scattered
never speak of high hopes shattered
only certain frames of mind
perceive the images of time
quietly they chant in rhyme
rebellion is the nature of these
self-degrading tendancies
though never seen with conscious eyes
understand these are not lies
vicious screams and tender sighs
whispered dreams and heartfelt cries
extremely real yet you can not see
you can not touch eternity
zestfully you plea to be free
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
cognitive dissonance
the usage of the word "ambivalence" has been relaxed over time, as is often the case in language. people sometimes use it to mean general uncertainty or indecisiveness (or when they should be using the word "ambiguous" instead), but it's really more specific than that. it's the state of having simultaneous, conflicting feelings (attractiveness and aversiveness) toward an object, person, or action. as unpleasant as this is to experience, it's a part of life and we all have to deal with it from time to time.
even more unpleasant and potentially more damaging is when one holds two contradictory ideas simultaneously. this is known as "cognitive dissonance". these contradictory ideas include one's beliefs, values, attitudes, or awareness of one's behavior, referred to henceforth as "cognitions". dissonance occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency between two of his/her cognitions. this can lead to negative emotional states such as anxiety, stress, guilt, shame, anger, fear, embarrassment, etc...
we, as humans, have a natural desire to reduce the level of dissonance in our cognition, ultimately trying to achieve "cognitive consonance"; the state of having all of one's cognitions in accordance with one another. consonance can be achieved in the face of dissonance by changing, justifying, or rationalizing one of the dissonant cognitions (or possibly by adding a new cognition).
for example, let's say that a man has a cognition, a belief, that he is a good person, and then engages in behavior which he considers to be that of a bad person, such as breaking the speed limit. the cognitive dissonance sets in as soon as he recognizes the inconsistency between the belief and the behavior. he could then try to resolve the dissonance by justifying the behavior: "i was only speeding because i was running late for an important meeting." or he could rationalize the behavior: "why not speed? everyone else does it." yet another way he might try to reconcile the dissonance is to change one of the cognitions. he can't go back in time to change the behavior, but he can change the belief that he is indeed a good person. this might be the least common route to cognitive consonance, but yet it is a possibility.
while the above example is valid, it's probably on the lighter side of dissonances that people experience. things can get quite heavy when issues arise of faith, friendship, parents, sex, monogamy, loyalty, money, etc... in extreme cases these can often lead to denial and other ego defence mechanisms that can push a person into sociopathic and maladaptive behaviors.
i've slowly been discovering that many of the problems i face in my life are due to cognitive dissonance. and not only the dissonance itself, but the methods i've chosen to resolve the dissonance. i think that i've too often chosen to alter my cognitions of self-perception so that i hold a negative self-image. and then other cognitions kick in so that i won't let myself be happy, and go so far as to punish myself for not being a good person. this allows me to fall into patterns of self-destruction, which lead me to "bottom out" so-to-speak. so the question i'm asking myself now is: "what is the healthiest way to achieve consonance while doing the least amount of damage to myself and those around me?"
even more unpleasant and potentially more damaging is when one holds two contradictory ideas simultaneously. this is known as "cognitive dissonance". these contradictory ideas include one's beliefs, values, attitudes, or awareness of one's behavior, referred to henceforth as "cognitions". dissonance occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency between two of his/her cognitions. this can lead to negative emotional states such as anxiety, stress, guilt, shame, anger, fear, embarrassment, etc...
we, as humans, have a natural desire to reduce the level of dissonance in our cognition, ultimately trying to achieve "cognitive consonance"; the state of having all of one's cognitions in accordance with one another. consonance can be achieved in the face of dissonance by changing, justifying, or rationalizing one of the dissonant cognitions (or possibly by adding a new cognition).
for example, let's say that a man has a cognition, a belief, that he is a good person, and then engages in behavior which he considers to be that of a bad person, such as breaking the speed limit. the cognitive dissonance sets in as soon as he recognizes the inconsistency between the belief and the behavior. he could then try to resolve the dissonance by justifying the behavior: "i was only speeding because i was running late for an important meeting." or he could rationalize the behavior: "why not speed? everyone else does it." yet another way he might try to reconcile the dissonance is to change one of the cognitions. he can't go back in time to change the behavior, but he can change the belief that he is indeed a good person. this might be the least common route to cognitive consonance, but yet it is a possibility.
while the above example is valid, it's probably on the lighter side of dissonances that people experience. things can get quite heavy when issues arise of faith, friendship, parents, sex, monogamy, loyalty, money, etc... in extreme cases these can often lead to denial and other ego defence mechanisms that can push a person into sociopathic and maladaptive behaviors.
i've slowly been discovering that many of the problems i face in my life are due to cognitive dissonance. and not only the dissonance itself, but the methods i've chosen to resolve the dissonance. i think that i've too often chosen to alter my cognitions of self-perception so that i hold a negative self-image. and then other cognitions kick in so that i won't let myself be happy, and go so far as to punish myself for not being a good person. this allows me to fall into patterns of self-destruction, which lead me to "bottom out" so-to-speak. so the question i'm asking myself now is: "what is the healthiest way to achieve consonance while doing the least amount of damage to myself and those around me?"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)


free will versus predetermination... is there any middle ground?