If You Could Re-Write humanitys' Instinct of "Self Preserve" (4 Words only)

How does your conscious mind interpret "Self Preserve"?

Self = Self (ME)
Pre = Before
Serve = To serve, aid, help, etc...


This is our initial programming. This is our first accepted truth. This is our first known fact, and accepted as such at the earliest age.

Our minds learn in accordance with the "Law of Association".

This means every new experience, and every new memory can only be fully comprehended if it is not in conflict with what we already accept as fact and truth.

For instance: Your kindergarden teacher did not introduce you to math by teaching trigonometry, did she? Would you fully comprehend what 5 is without accepting as fact that 1, 2, 3, and 4 existed and were real? First we were taught how to count, then to add and subtract, then to multiply and divide, and then algebra, and then ....

This is what the law of association is, we learn new information, only by being able to connect it to pre-existing information we accept as truth and fact.

I brought all that up to show how the instinct of "Self Before i Serve" is the first accepted truth we know of. It is our primary command, encoded in each cell of our body.

Try to think of humanity as a bunch of robots, with an original program that states:"Self Before I Serve".

Now, if you could re-write or change the message encoded genetically into our cells, and you only had 4 or less words to put in there, what would you make as our first program?

Give this one some thought, please.

You have 4 words or less, and can replace what our Instinct states now, what would you change it to?

I have come up with some good ones, but i sort of like this one most right now, and think it puts emphases on others first, others being life in general:

You Owe Why

I gave this one some thought. At least what passes for thought in my world. And after much pondering, here's what I came up with: I wouldn't change it. And here's my reasoning: Unless I exist, and continue to exist, there isn't a whole heckuva lot I can do for anyone else. So it makes perfect sense to me that the best instinct one can have is for self preservation.

Helping others, servicing others, all noble concepts. But cannot be performed if you cease to exist.

I don't think self preservation in and of itself is selfish. Selfishness can be taken to an extreme. A focus on the acquisiton of creature comforts and material wealth can be overdone, to be sure. But that goes well beyond "self preservation" doesn't it? It still makes sense to have self preservation as the primary programming. You've got to be your best to do your best.

Maybe.

Just my thought.

"'Instinct' is as 'instinct' does."

Okay it's five words not four, but true anyway.

Self-preservation being an overriding instinct that one ALWAYS acts on is one of those fables that just don't prove themselves to be true.

Watch most any parent with small children, lets just say in Israel during the recent bombing and see if they run for cover without herding the kids ahead of them.

How about the firemen and policemen who went into the towers to rescue people?

How about the man who runs into a burning building to get his wife and kids out and ends up dying himself?

Yes, there are plenty who would stand by a burning car, watch a person drown, or be at some other life-threatening disaster and do nothing, but there is always the one who breaks the window or jumps into the freezing river to grab a drowning person.

My point is not that there is no inclination to self-preserve, but that it is not an instinct but merely an element of human self-centeredness; selfishness, in a word.








[edit on 1-9-2006 by curiousity]

Originally posted by curiousity
"'Instinct' is as 'instinct' does."

Watch most any parent with small children, lets just say in Israel during the recent bombing and see if they run for cover without herding the kids ahead of them.

Fear of loosing is still fear. And it is that fear of loosing that motivates them. Are they putting the needs of the children first, or are they responding to the threat of loosing that which they love? I think their fear of loosing what they love may be the initiator of their actions and behaviors, and that fear is provided by what?

How about the firemen and policemen who went into the towers to rescue people?

With eight years as a firefighter, and 2 years as a firefighter in warzones, i can relate. And it is those experiences, coupled with others, that brought such thoughts to the forefront of my mind, and thus this thread.

How about the man who runs into a burning building to get his wife and kids out and ends up dying himself?

Self Preservation is evident in these actions and behaviors as well, but are masked.

Yes, there are plenty who would stand by a burning car, watch a person drown, or be at some other life-threatening disaster and do nothing, but there is always the one who breaks the window or jumps into the freezing river to grab a drowning person.

But, do they themselves consciously know why they have done such a thing? Do they themselves know consciously all the variables that causes them to either act, or choose not to act?

My point is not that there is no inclination to self-preserve, but that it is not an instinct but merely an element of human self-centeredness; selfishness, in a word.


[edit on 3-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by curiousity
"'Instinct' is as 'instinct' does."

Watch most any parent with small children, lets just say in Israel during the recent bombing and see if they run for cover without herding the kids ahead of them.

Fear of loosing is still fear. And it is that fear of loosing that motivates them. Are they putting the needs of the children first, or are they responding to the threat of loosing that which they love? I think their fear of loosing what they love may be the initiator of their actions and behaviors, and that fear is provided by what?

How about the firemen and policemen who went into the towers to rescue people?

With eight years as a firefighter, and 2 years as a firefighter in warzones, i can relate. And it is those experiences, coupled with others, that brought such thoughts to the forefront of my mind, and thus this thread.

How about the man who runs into a burning building to get his wife and kids out and ends up dying himself?

Self Preservation is evident in these actions and behaviors as well, but are masked.

Yes, there are plenty who would stand by a burning car, watch a person drown, or be at some other life-threatening disaster and do nothing, but there is always the one who breaks the window or jumps into the freezing river to grab a drowning person.

But, do they themselves consciously know why they have done such a thing? Do they themselves know consciously all the variables that causes them to either act, or choose not to act?

My point is not that there is no inclination to self-preserve, but that it is not an instinct but merely an element of human self-centeredness; selfishness, in a word.


[edit on 3-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

So you're saying whether it is an instinct or a selfish motive to self-preserve, it is all there just under any selfless act. And that if it is not a consciously understood motive to self-preservation, it is still just a selfish act. And the guy who enters a burning building and dies in an attempt to save someone else is selfishly acting out the instinct for self-preservation?

And you know this because of your esoteric teaching?

I think we can safely understand that logic is not one of your primary courses.

Originally posted by curiousity

So you're saying whether it is an instinct or a selfish motive to self-preserve, it is all there just under any selfless act. And that if it is not a consciously understood motive to self-preservation, it is still just a selfish act. And the guy who enters a burning building and dies in an attempt to save someone else is selfishly acting out the instinct for self-preservation?

That was not the original scenario. The guy who entered the burning building in your first scenario was not just saving someone else while he died, he was saving those in his life who had become an extension of his will, and thus an extention of himself. Your first scenario went like this, my friend:

Originally Posted by curiousity
How about the man who runs into a burning building to get his wife and kids out and ends up dying himself?

Originally Posted by Esoteric Teacher
Self Preservation is evident in these actions and behaviors as well, but are masked.

You act as though my comments were in response to this scenario:

]Originally Posted by curiousity
And the guy who enters a burning building and dies in an attempt to save someone else is selfishly acting out the instinct for self-preservation?

When my comments were in response to this scenario:

Originally Posted by curiousity
How about the man who runs into a burning building to get his wife and kids out and ends up dying himself?

I think we can both agree that there is a difference between "saving someone else", and "saving his wife and kids".

Originally Posted by curiousity
And you know this because of your esoteric teaching? .....

I think we can safely understand that logic is not one of your primary courses.

You can think what you want, but as for my logic, it is supported by mainstream science, as well as many other disciplines:

Short answer: The man who ran into the burning building to save his wife and kids may have been reacting, but his motivation may have been to preserve his long existing neuro-net, the pre-existing automated subconscious relationships (connections)between his brain cells, and to preserve the stimulis that allows his hypothalmus to produce the neuro-peptides that his cells have become addicted to, just like an addiction to drugs. These kind of responses often happen invollentary, and without consciously being aware of the why. Having been a firefighter for over 8 years, and having spent over 2 of those years as a firefighter in warzones, i can tell you from personnal experience that firefighters often act in a way that does force them to address internally the mechanisms that cause us to act in a way that is contrary to our instincts.

Long answer:
Source/Link:
www.annebaring.com...

Unconscious toxic emotions - anger, guilt, anxiety, fear, depression - affect the immune system, the digestive system, the circulatory system and the hormonal system because these all interact with each other instantaneously. Children who have been abused or subjected to a chronically abusive environment grow up to be hyper-vigilant of other people's moods and body language as a protective measure. This is a symptom of trauma. They may have forgotten the situation which originally caused the hypervigilance. They sense changes in mood, or a subtle inflexion in the voice or body language long before others do. This hypervigilance affects every system in the body, programming it to constant arousal. It depresses the immune system.
The Amygdala (see diagram) is an almond-shaped cluster of interconnected structures just above the brainstem near the bottom of the limbic ring, one on each side of the brain, toward the side of the head above the ears. It acts as a storehouse of emotional memory. The amygdala is one the main links between the older limbic brain and the relatively newly developed cerebral cortex. A visual signal goes from the retina of the eye to the thalamus, where it is translated into the language of the brain. Most of the message then goes to the visual cortex (at the back of head) where it is analysed and assessed for meaning and appropriate response. If that response is emotional, a signal goes to the amygdala to activate the emotional centres. But a smaller portion of the original signal takes an 'emergency route' or short-cut via a small nucleus of neurons direct from the thalamus to the amygdala in a much faster transmission, allowing an instantaneous (though less precise) response ……

The amygdala can trigger an instinctive response before the cortical centres have fully understood what is happening. This is a life-preserving reflex. Survival may depend on 1000's of a second response. But it also means that emotions can bypass the neocortex. Emotion can overwhelm the 'rational' mind and cause us to react 'blindly' on impulse. Intense joy comes through the amygdala as well as fear, grief and anger. Tears are triggered by the amygdala and it responds immediately to the person being held, stroked or comforted. (see dog or cat being stroked. Cat purrs). The amygdala is like a guardian at the gate - challenging every experience "Is this something that is dangerous, that will hurt, that I fear?" The amygdala triggers the hormones to prepare the body for fight or flight, activates the heart and makes it beat faster, causes the muscles to tense and arouses feelings in the gut (fear); heightens and clarifies or focuses brain functioning - all almost instantaneously. Conversely it reacts instantaneously to something that conveys safety, happiness, physical well-being such as stroking or warm water.
The Hippocampus remembers facts from the past. The amygdala remembers the emotions that went with them. When you see a spider, the hippocampus will remind you that you have seen a spider in the past; the amygdala will tell you the emotions that went with that earlier experience. The brain has at least two memory systems: one for ordinary facts and one for emotionally charged ones. We remember most the most vivid memories - this was probably of great help in evolutionary development, helping us to avoid dangerous situations and predators. The problem, however, is that we can react to situations which are not life-threatening with the same intensity of emotion that was appropriate when we were confronted with a cave lion. (see also birth experience) (Smell can recall a past experience and trigger the same responses of happiness, sensory delight, relaxation or horror, disgust, dread).

Source/Link:
www.overweight-over-40.com...

Every thought that runs through our brains creates an electrical and chemical reaction. Repeated often enough, neuro pathways are formed, a thought pattern is formed, and a habit is formed. The brain has no interest in what could be called a ‘good’ thought or a ‘bad’ thought. It simply reproduces according to the thought diet it is fed.
A thought pattern is reinforced by millions of memories and associations linked together from life’s experience. A few opening bars of a song a person has associated with a certain time and place in her life will be enough to bring feelings, thoughts and pictures of that time flashing back into her present moment. This is how we bring our past into our present.
What happens in the body when a thought pattern is repeated over and over? Neural pathways are set up and the brain then runs on automatic, rapidly firing a million pathways and memories with any given trigger. The hypothalamus then goes into action to produce corresponding neuro peptides. Emotions of anger, joy, depression, unworthiness etc. are all produced upon demand, depending on the predominant thoughts it is fed. These neuro peptides are then dumped into the blood stream through the pituitary gland and off they go to search out corresponding receptors on the outsides of cells throughout the body. When they find them, and these cells can be in any part of the body, the peptides dock into the receptors and subsequently the actual DNA of the cell is affected according to the particular emotions. …….
….. The trouble is, that the process of creating the adrenaline becomes addictive. Your body becomes addicted to that rush, to the high of adrenaline. And no matter what other efforts you make to lose weight, if you don’t take care of that addiction, you will never lose weight.
Most people go on struggling endlessly with their food addiction, not realizing that it is addiction behind their overeating that is the real culprit. This further reinforces the belief that there is something wrong with them. They prove it by being out of control with their eating, feeling totally not OK and failing yet again.
In the meantime, every time the body craves and receives a shot of adrenaline, something else is going on. As the peptides created by this ‘something is wrong with me’ thought process, are released into the blood stream, they seek out and find corresponding receptor sites on the outside of cells in the body. When they find these sites, they lock into them An electrical impulse is released into the cell where in its very heart, resides the DNA. DNA is responsible for producing the protein in our bodies. Whatever kind of protein we need, bone, skin, hair etc., the DNA provides it. When the chemical of ‘something is wrong with me’ is released into the cell, it unravels the DNA. The protein the DNA produces is then compromised, of a degenerate quality. There will be some amino acid skin tissue protein for example, and then some chains of ‘something is wrong with me.’ And so on.

Continued in next post .....

Continued:

This means, your whole body becomes compromised with the ‘something is wrong with me’ attitude of thought. Is it any wonder our bodies begin to break down, to suffer the consequences of harmful thought?
The order of compromise in our bodies’ breakdown generally goes: 1) the immune system, 2) the digestive system, 3) the heart, and 4) the joints or connective tissue.
What to do? This is the difficult part. Most of us don’t want to go through the discomfort of withdrawal symptoms. The process of changing our thinking to heal the damage to our bodies is not quite as simple as it sounds. What happens to the cells when the stimulus they have lived with for all these years is removed? Just as for the heroin addict who doesn’t get his fix, they go into total chaos: all the typical symptoms of withdrawal are experienced, which can be very uncomfortable to say the least.

Other Sources, Links, & References:
www.thetunneller.co.uk...
www.soulconnexion.co.uk...

On this sight, there is a list of nearly 30 books that discuss our cellular addiction to our own neuron-peptides:
www.dio.ru...

And you know this because of your esoteric teaching?

I think we can safely understand that logic is not one of your primary courses.

To be honest, that hurt a little. Not me, because i can offer a rebuttal to the claim that "I think we can safely understand that logic is not one of your primary courses".

My logic is substantiated in science, and it is proven that our cells do become addicted to the chemical neuro-peptides that our body produces in the hypothalmus, and also that we do defend and meet resistance to re-hardwiring our neuro-net.

When a man runs into a building to save his wife and kids, his initial actions are provoked by a need to sustain his neuro-net and the long lasting relationships between brain cells, this happens automatically in most cases, although the man may not be consciously aware of what he is trying to preserve. And, the chemicals that the body produces regularly are indeed causing the cells of his own body to be addicted to the chemical stimuli provided by the experiences and interactions with his wife and kids, such chemical stimuli which the man has been conditioned to over years of being married, and being a father.

So, that is why my original response to the scenario of the man running into a building was met by a response by me that his reaction may be "masked", but also has an initiator of self preservation.

Furthermore, his children represent his immortality, they are an extension of himself, as is his wife, and therefore it is him saving that which is a part of him.

Hope this explains my disfunctional logic to you.


[edit on 4-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]