It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

There are only two things you can control, your thoughts and your actions..

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

So many videos that you are presenting here. Don't you learn anything from within instead of without ?

I do not dispute that we should try a system or two, but to open ourselves to thousands of youtube videos is a remedy for disaster; guaranteed to cut off the direct link that we have inside.

I chose the esoteric path because it is the most consistent and fruitful. The plan is simple and the architecture is solid




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Then perhaps we should all congratulate each other for all your posts.

You're stuck in a well slapping hands away saying no all of us are in the well instead of extending a hand to meet in the middle either from within it or above it... the well is the experience of the all you keep screaming about saying one mind one mind we are all one mind.

Yes communication is the echo of that one mind and the various ways the personality expressing the all through it... so out of selfishness are you going to hoard the all that you see for yourself or see it in the smile of others, the door they hold open, the hand lended that keeps all of this going as a community in form? Using the two hands as an expression of the divine or simply cling to a very small part of it because it is comfortable to do so?

One concept does not everything make.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: crowdedskies

Reminds me of Sartre's "Youth is wasted on the young" many times by the time we have all the wisdom needed for oneself... it is only good to help others with; being too old to make much else use of it, other than annoy the hell out of people that would rather find their own way.




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Davg80


you can control, your thoughts


" dont think about elephants "

premise falsified - thanks for playing


You certainly live up to your namesake.

Believing that your own mind is outside your power says more about you than anything else. Honesty, I wonder how some posters in this thread can even function in day-to-day life. Having the outlook of a helpless infant is nothing to advertise openly, even on the Internet.




originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
The tv show influenced the thoughts - but what influenced the initial watching of the tv show?


Great point!

The "you can control your thoughts" argument is farcical. It's a dangerous line of reasoning that will inevitably lead to the persecution of people based on thought crimes.



Right. The only thing that's farcical is a line of reasoning that concludes with persecution and thought crimes as a result of trying to manage one's own thoughts.

People need to do a bit more more thinking before posting in philosophical threads like this. You know, exercise some logic, i.e. control your thinking (and your mouths/fingers) a bit.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies
So many videos that you are presenting here. Don't you learn anything from within instead of without ?

It was discovered here and then 14 years later it was heard from apparent others.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: crowdedskies
I bought myself two volumes of Schopenhauer more that 20 years ago. Midway through the first volume , I decided that I had nothing to gain from it. Everything written was very clear, yet there was nothing that I could benefit from.


Different philosophies will resonate with different people.


To use a phrase such as "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills" is just a play on words; a riddle that cannot be solved and is only there to create a knot on a string. In fact , it has no meaning at all . It is like saying ;" I cannot eat what I eat"


I disagree. It's not really a play on words or a riddle. And it does have meaning. While it is of course open to interpretation, my own interpretation is as follows: you can take action towards satisfying your desires, but you cannot control what you desire.

That point rings true in this very thread. Take for example your earlier assertions that through practice, one can learn to control their thoughts. You may be able to control your thoughts, but you cannot change your desire to do so. This desire to control your thoughts is out of your control — whether you act on it or not.


Desire is one of the few things that truly is under our control. Desire, aversion, intentions, and the management of impressions. If you want me to elaborate, I can.

My own interpretation of the Schopenhauer quote is that we all "will" what is good, or rather, what's good for ourselves. No one "wills" what is bad or harmful, especially to oneself. This is pretty much nature's dictate, so yes, in that sense we have no control over the fact that we want what's best for ourselves. The problem is that people don't have the correct notions of what is truly good and bad. We all understand the idea of good, but each person differs in what exactly he views as the good.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
Desire is one of the few things that truly is under our control. Desire, aversion, intentions, and the management of impressions. If you want me to elaborate, I can.

So can you choose to like chocolate icecream and not strawberry? Can you choose who you find attractive?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc

Exactly they are universal concepts but unique to each individual in meaning based on experience. Equanimity doesn't play judge to such as either or; knowing it is what it is until someone judges it different than what it is and at that point the reality of it ceases to exist and becomes an illusion or delusion instead of actual reality... this is what gets expressed in what is termed an ego self.

Form may be distinct but it can work for more than oneself; and therein lay the difference... working only for oneself one only sees one facet of being, one point of view and misses out on the true gem or richness of life that every person is a facet that can shine or refract light through it when looked at closely. The many expressions echoing the same things whether in delusionary agreement for or against is the cause for so much diversity of life and judging by those distinctions is what causes so much adversity in it.

It is already in perfection whether anyone sees imperfection is an echo of a desire for comfort and ease to what they find discomforting or a disease to a limited form... this is why mind training becomes so important, diving into the disease or unsatisfactory and embracing suffering is what builds actual empathy to know instead of just comprehending and trying to understand. It's why misery is said to love company... it just seeks some understanding so misery ceases, for many a distraction does just that for others in poor health pain may seem inescapable and not so easy to bat away with distraction and in such misery their company is what seems most unpleasant to the healthy as it is a mirror they wouldn't want to see for themselves... seeing all the world in such a manner then it is embraced with no nook no cranny no safe spot to hide in with fearlessness so that if anything it lends strength to those that need it most.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
Right. The only thing that's farcical is a line of reasoning that concludes with persecution and thought crimes as a result of trying to manage one's own thoughts.


Maybe you should touch up on your reading comprehension skills before replying to a post you do not appear to have understood.


People need to do a bit more more thinking before posting in philosophical threads like this. You know, exercise some logic, i.e. control your thinking (and your mouths/fingers) a bit.


People don't need your permission to post in philosophical threads. And if you think to "exercise some logic" equates with "controlling your thinking", then you should really go back to basics and research the word "logic".


edit on 26/10/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
Desire is one of the few things that truly is under our control. Desire, aversion, intentions, and the management of impressions. If you want me to elaborate, I can.


This should be interesting.

Yes, go on and elaborate on how "desire" and "aversion" are under our control.


My own interpretation of the Schopenhauer quote is that we all "will" what is good, or rather, what's good for ourselves. No one "wills" what is bad or harmful, especially to oneself. This is pretty much nature's dictate, so yes, in that sense we have no control over the fact that we want what's best for ourselves. The problem is that people don't have the correct notions of what is truly good and bad. We all understand the idea of good, but each person differs in what exactly he views as the good.


Can people have the correct notions of what is truly good or bad, though? Good and bad are subjective...



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

You said arguing for the idea that you can control your thoughts leads to persecution and thought crimes. Do I need to quote you again?

Go ahead and tell everyone, in detail, how the OPs argument invariably leads to persecution. You didn't make an argument of your own, you just spouted off and expected no one to challenge it.

What's logic if not a way to reign in our thoughts? Without an objective criteria to view the world, we'd constantly be at the whim of inconsistent emotions and passions. Logic is exactly the act of bringing your thoughts to heel to better understand things. If that's not control, then explain what is.

You would conform your behavior to standards of politeness in a social setting or else risk looking like a fool. Why wouldn't you conform your thinking to a standard of truth (I.e. logic), at risk of far worse than just looking like a fool to others?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Good and bad are subjective...


Easy for you to say now. However, put in a situation with a gun pointed at your head, you'll be begging your assailant to do the "right" thing like every other hypocrite that makes this argument. Woe betide you, because your idea of good and bad mean nothing to him.

This is not to say you aren't unintentionally right, though. With regard to anything external, or outside the will, good and bad are truly subjective.


originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Talorc
Desire is one of the few things that truly is under our control. Desire, aversion, intentions, and the management of impressions. If you want me to elaborate, I can.

So can you choose to like chocolate icecream and not strawberry? Can you choose who you find attractive?


I can't control the impulse or impression of attraction at first sight. On the contrary, I can bring the impulse to heel and choose not to desire and pursue the person. It's fairly easy for someone who doesn't think like a child.

edit on 26-10-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Good and bad are subjective...


Easy for you to say now. However, put in a situation with a gun pointed at your head, you'll be begging your assailant to do the "right" thing like every other hypocrite that makes this argument. Woe betide you, because your idea of good and bad mean nothing to him.

This is not to say you aren't unintentionally right, though. With regard to anything external, or outside the will, good and bad are truly subjective.


originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Talorc
Desire is one of the few things that truly is under our control. Desire, aversion, intentions, and the management of impressions. If you want me to elaborate, I can.

So can you choose to like chocolate icecream and not strawberry? Can you choose who you find attractive?


I can't control the impulse or impression of attraction at first sight. On the contrary, I can bring the impulse to heel and choose not to desire and pursue the person. It's fairly easy for someone who doesn't think like a child.


If you can't control the impulse or impression then you can't control which thoughts 'come' to you.

YES you can choose what to do with each thought that 'arises' but we do not control those initial thoughts or nobody would ever had thoughts they didn't like would they?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Good and bad are subjective...


Easy for you to say now. However, put in a situation with a gun pointed at your head, you'll be begging your assailant to do the "right" thing like every other hypocrite that makes this argument. Woe betide you, because your idea of good and bad mean nothing to him.

This is not to say you aren't unintentionally right, though. With regard to anything external, or outside the will, good and bad are truly subjective.


originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Talorc
Desire is one of the few things that truly is under our control. Desire, aversion, intentions, and the management of impressions. If you want me to elaborate, I can.

So can you choose to like chocolate icecream and not strawberry? Can you choose who you find attractive?


I can't control the impulse or impression of attraction at first sight. On the contrary, I can bring the impulse to heel and choose not to desire and pursue the person. It's fairly easy for someone who doesn't think like a child.


A gun to your head immediately solves all of your problems and starts even more for them... not really anything to be feared.

Here's how you stop having impulses... when driving if you do drive do you see cars or the people in them? In the same way cease to see people by placing the mind on the task at hand, that task in mindfulness of walking it is one with just walking not mindlessly walking looking around subjecting everything of visual contact to thoughts one takes as oneself as having. Sitting is just sitting and if drinking there's contact of the glass or bottle that can be focus and if in contact with another then the words can be one's full focus otherwise it's likely little hearing takes place especially the more talking one does not oneself.

5 senses going on at once and not all of them in awareness at once so focus or consciousness can be shifted to one and immediately cut off the other that is seen as distracting or unwanted.

It's not as complex as it's made out to be



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc

That is where your reading comprehension failed. I stated that the "you can control your thoughts" argument will inevitably lead to persecution of people based on their thoughts. I didn't imply it was an instant, automatic result of accepting the argument.

I can detail rather easily detail how this would be the case. Once the argument "you can control your thoughts" becomes widely accepted as true and technology reaches a point where it can analyse people's thought patterns and predict their future behaviour, things will go downhill from there.

Governments will utilise the technology to prevent terrorist attacks, murders, theft etc. Sounds good at face value, right? But what about the person who just had a fight with their relative and feels like "murdering them". What about thinking about committing a terrorist attacks? If you cannot see how these realities are connected by a causal link then you are truly lost.

Logic is about inquiry through the use of sound reasoning — inferences where the conclusion drawn follows directly from the premises made. It has little to do with "controlling your thoughts". You are just back-pedalling now.


edit on 26/10/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
Easy for you to say now. However, put in a situation with a gun pointed at your head, you'll be begging your assailant to do the "right" thing like every other hypocrite that makes this argument. Woe betide you, because your idea of good and bad mean nothing to him.


An atrocious example. Most people will say anything to the gunmen if it ensures their own survival — including using faulty reasoning and outright lies to ensure they do not get shot.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
I can't control the impulse or impression of attraction at first sight. On the contrary, I can bring the impulse to heel and choose not to desire and pursue the person. It's fairly easy for someone who doesn't think like a child.

Can you choose which icecream you prefer?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

If governments went down the road of pre-crimes and anticipatory arrests, that's on them. It doesn't change the fact that it's possible to regulate your thinking. Aristotle advocated using good habits to change your thought patterns and cultivate virtues. All schools of thought that purport to show the way to happiness, greater self-control, better judgement, etc all rely on people adopting habits and internalizing certain virtues to change their patterns of thinking. What else is Socratic reasoning, Platonic idealism, Buddhist enlightenment, Christian love, and whatever else, other than the attempt to "control your thoughts"?

You control your thoughts every day, even if you don't recognize it. Every instance of self-restraint, good judgement, patience, temperance, and clear-headedness is an instance of reigning in thoughts and impressions. Maybe we need to stipulate what "controlling one's thoughts" means, because that might be where the discrepancy is.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Talorc
Easy for you to say now. However, put in a situation with a gun pointed at your head, you'll be begging your assailant to do the "right" thing like every other hypocrite that makes this argument. Woe betide you, because your idea of good and bad mean nothing to him.


An atrocious example. Most people will say anything to the gunmen if it ensures their own survival — including using faulty reasoning and outright lies to ensure they do not get shot.


Evidently it's a perfect example. If someone will say anything to save their own lives, it follows that they believe that dying is bad and living is good. And if they believe that dying is bad for themselves, then to be consistent, they must believe it's bad for all their fellow humans. Someone who truly believes that good and bad are subjective, with regard to life, would be utterly indifferent to living and dying. They would say nothing.

Are you indifferent to life and death? Would you say nothing? Be honest with yourself.

Or put differently: if someone stole from you, would you complain? Would you get angry, and bemoan your luck? Then you must believe that theft is bad. And if theft is bad for you, then to be consistent, you must believe it's bad for everyone else. But if you truly believe that good and bad are subjective, how can you possibly complain or get angry when someone steals from you?

Hopefully it's clear now. The reality is that dying isn't truly bad, and neither is being stolen from, but dishonesty, hypocrisy, and inconsistency certainly are.


originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Can you choose which icecream you prefer?


I can choose whether I want any particular ice cream flavor.


originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness


A gun to your head immediately solves all of your problems and starts even more for them... not really anything to be feared.


You're absolutely right. This is the only correct answer.
edit on 26-10-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-10-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I understand what you mean... it is like a person signing a contract for a company or business, their attire and presentation is only supposed to appear as an avatar of that company or business with no personal personality attached.

Such a thing only has bred sociopathology/psychopathology put on airs or a facade not oneself this has bled out into even interpersonal relationships where an image of who and what someone is giving is not really them just a representation of them as to whom they would like to be or be perceived as being and not actually them, and their true motives or nature are then to be discovered at some later point in time.

So how much of the world lives in reality and how much of it in just wishful thinking and not actual honesty?

So when society and social norms get to a point where no one can be themselves in brutal honesty to their feelings then it only promotes yet more sociopathology/psychopathology and well there goes the thought crimes to where one should feel guilt or self persecution for having and desire to change for a better world if not for a better life as it is sold as leading too.

Since mind reading technology does exist and even at the point to where others can watch them played out in pictures like a movie form... then it does seem like there's a possible future to where people are arrested for crimes before it even happens... this has already occurred and still does on social media platforms as it is taken as communicated threats and a perdition or desire to carry out what was said and gets taken seriously when no crime other than words took place even if that person was "joking" difficult if not impossible to tell in written word as tone, actual emotional state and no use of emoji is used... so people are carted off and their mental health placed into question under close observation so it is already at the threshold of a quasi "Minority Report" dystopian ideal that removes even more freedom in ideas of control simply based on the fear or feelings of others.

Should it get to that point? For myself it doesn't matter having a well trained/tamed mind... for others echoing concepts and thought clouds they parrot and take that as a self in the egoist sense? Then yes, something to be concerned about if society progresses down that road... all we do in communication is parrot words into strings unique to our understanding of experience that has already passed by the time it is presented as an expression... that does not mean it is one's being at all that experience is done and over and new ones constantly arising unless attached to a mass of experience as oneself instead of just a moment of experience long gone... those experiences are no different than a tape player playing a voice is not that person's actual vocal cords producing it in the moment in which it is replayed.

Thought is not oneself although when taken to be? It simply echos concepts of attachment that; that individual has occuring in their life in repetitional arising or random arising... whether it is their attachment or simply someone else's attachment to them and simply relaying the experience or in simple information sharing it can turn into something someone expects or feels safe to assume... people feel a sense of stability in what appears unchanging but the fact of the matter; every single moment is 100% different from the last and embracing that impermanence is to understand what permanence actually is: impermanence itself where the two are inseparable except in personal or taught illusion or delusion.

So when everything is being created and destroyed instantly where is chaos and peace other than in whatever gets attached to or echoed in the mirror of internal and external? In non duality or bias there is no extremes; no internal nor external, nor any other concept where everything has an opposite and it requires no further thought or determination about it; as that will not change it in any way shape or form just add yet another label creating what conceptually gets called entropy. One can then step entirely outside of contrarian or dualistic reality and suffering for oneself ceases but that does not stop when observing the moment that really has no arising and passing, coming or going.

A rectangular piece of cloth has never ceased being a rectangular piece of cloth despite calling it a bed spread or a tablecloth or altering the size to a towel or washcloth... in such a manner we can see entropy is just a conceptual label as we occam our razor about and call it progress or science.


edit on 26-10-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join