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.

 

A logical deduction on how to live life (without bias or social constructs)...

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
All you have to do is follow these questions and you'll lead to a logical conclusion...

1) The quality of existence is to exist, correct?

2) You exist, correct?

3) That which exists is worthy of existance for if it were not, it wouldn't be able to exist, correct?

4) If you exist, then logically, you are worthy of existence?

5) When there is no stimulation (happy or sad moments), you are calm, correct?

6) Therefore, naturally, you're dominant nature is calm/peaceful, correct?

7) The quality of life, is to live, correct?

8) Therefore, from these logical deductions, we can conclude that one should live in a way for the natural calm/peaceful state of being, and that each personality is worthy of existence regardless of "feelings" until they no longer exist, correct?

9) We can also conclude that, if word, thought, or action arise from anger, hatred, love, or desire of such emotions, they do not arise from true nature, but from emotion or desire, and only that which arises from the calmness is actually representative of one's true dominant nature, correct?


So, in normal speech, if you exist, you are worthy of existence, emotion arises as a response to situations (events, persons, or thoughts) and the true dominant nature is calmness which is the feeling of non-stimulation, therefore, only when one thinks, feels, or act from the state of calmness, is one actually taking actions representative of one's true dominant nature...


edit on 5-8-2012 by arpgme because: added




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


This is realization of the 'I am' state. Know you exist. Know thyself with nothing added.
You do not have to live life, you are living.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 

We can't live life without bias or social constructs.

The only way to reduce prejudice is to admit you're prejudice and deny yourself natural impulses. Identify what you're inclined to believe or favor and accept that you're wrong about a lot of it.

Nobody likes to admit they're wrong about a lot of the things they believe strongly.

All of us are prejudice. And it goes against our nature not to be.

This is primarily why we have government and society and libraries and so on. As we're, we're too #%@!! prejudice. The only way sh** gets done is when we respect each other and argue constantly. If you don't see arguing happening then people are sheltering themselves from the adversity. That's worse because by trapping your prejudices inside yourself they build up. It makes you intolerant.

There's just one thing in this universe: Change. Everything else is illusion.
edit on 5-8-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Well this is pretty much what Buddhism is. It teaches you to let go of everything and return to the nothingness.
edit on 8/5/2012 by Truth07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth07
 

One way to eliminate prejudice is to become nothing. You're right.

A dead human is an unbiased human.
edit on 5-8-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Truth07
 

One way to eliminate prejudice is to become nothing. Translation: Die. You're right.
edit on 5-8-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)


Die to all beliefs and ideas but you don't have to physically die.
A human sacrifice is no more than the death of the ego. Life continues but without the bully and the victim mentality.
edit on 5-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


If I may say, you do the mistake of thinking that you can define "something" outside of its environment. Sure, you can do it with language, but in reality the "something" and the environment are two inseparable entities, they are the same process. Any biological organism has been shaped by all the pressures that the environment has produced. Thinking that there is a "natural" state of being is a mistake, because there is always an environment.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 


The enviroment and you are the one being.
But don't confuse yourself with the enviroment. If you do you will be thrown around. The movement is seen by the stillness.

The enviroment is like the waves on the ocean but you are the ocean, deep down it is still, the stillness sees the waves waving.
edit on 5-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
In this ocean that i am there is great depth, down in the dark abyss it is still, it is calm, in the deepest of sleep i return there where there is nothing to see. As i awake i rise to the surface and see the light bouncing of the waves and think they are separate from me. I rise futher and become a wave and forget that i am the ocean.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
All you have to do is follow these questions and you'll lead to a logical conclusion...

1) The quality of existence is to exist, correct?

2) You exist, correct?

3) That which exists is worthy of existance for if it were not, it wouldn't be able to exist, correct?

4) If you exist, then logically, you are worthy of existence?

5) When there is no stimulation (happy or sad moments), you are calm, correct?

6) Therefore, naturally, you're dominant nature is calm/peaceful, correct?

7) The quality of life, is to live, correct?

8) Therefore, from these logical deductions, we can conclude that one should live in a way for the natural calm/peaceful state of being, and that each personality is worthy of existence regardless of "feelings" until they no longer exist, correct?

9) We can also conclude that, if word, thought, or action arise from anger, hatred, love, or desire of such emotions, they do not arise from true nature, but from emotion or desire, and only that which arises from the calmness is actually representative of one's true dominant nature, correct?


So, in normal speech, if you exist, you are worthy of existence, emotion arises as a response to situations (events, persons, or thoughts) and the true dominant nature is calmness which is the feeling of non-stimulation, therefore, only when one thinks, feels, or act from the state of calmness, is one actually taking actions representative of one's true dominant nature...


edit on 5-8-2012 by arpgme because: added


You thought of this on your own?

If so, congrats. You just reinvented a large portion of Buddhism.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by arpgme
 

We can't live life without bias or social constructs.


We can live life without social constructs because these are just agreed upon rules between two people or more (like a society), but we can not live without bias because we will always have a human bias (disliking that which is harmful to the human, and liking that which is good for the human).

Even if we silence the thoughts and live in awareness and just observation, we will still have instinct to not do something stupid like put ourselves in danger because this is a human bias that we are designed to have.


Originally posted by jonnywhite
There's just one thing in this universe: Change. Everything else is illusion.[


And you know this... how? If everything is the only thing that exists, then it can not be an "illusion" because we don't have anything else to compare EVERYTHING, so it is real since EVERYTHING is really the only things...



Originally posted by gosseyn
reply to post by arpgme
 


If I may say, you do the mistake of thinking that you can define "something" outside of its environment. Sure, you can do it with language, but in reality the "something" and the environment are two inseparable entities, they are the same process. Any biological organism has been shaped by all the pressures that the environment has produced. Thinking that there is a "natural" state of being is a mistake, because there is always an environment.


You are very intelligent. The "thing" is always connected to the "environment" and it is only though the mind or language that we learn to separate them which is a fallacy since we could not know how something would be without an environment... however, we CAN know how something would act without a positive or negative stimulation from life and that would be calmness (neutrality). So calmness is the more "natural" / "dominant" state and we can learn to have awareness of the positive and negative happenings in life and respond with a neutral state of being (calmness) - I am not talking about letting the negative things beat you up and staying calming - I'm talking about reacting from calmness, if you put your hand in fire, you can just be aware of the pain and remove it - you do not have to feel "bad" or "negative" about that, you can stay in a neutral place.

There is an alternative way of looking at things which is also logical, but I'll mention that in a few...



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 



1) The quality of existence is to exist, correct?


The quality? Qualities are a human construct. Existence just is.


2) You exist, correct?


Correct, although I guess it is important at this point to figure out who I truly am.


3) That which exists is worthy of existance for if it were not, it wouldn't be able to exist, correct?


This is just philosophical babble. Again, worth is a human construct. Existence just is.


4) If you exist, then logically, you are worthy of existence?


Ummm... how many times are we going to ask the same question in different ways? Again, again, worth and quality are human constructs. Existence just is.


5) When there is no stimulation (happy or sad moments), you are calm, correct?


Correct.


6) Therefore, naturally, you're dominant nature is calm/peaceful, correct?


It would be more correct to state it as you did before; when there is no stimulation there is a calmness or tranquility. "Dominant nature" is such a loaded phrase I don't even want to touch it.


7) The quality of life, is to live, correct?


Wow, I am starting to feel as if I have just wasted my time. Maybe I should of read through these questions first, lol. Again, again, again, quality is a human construct. Life just is.


8) Therefore, from these logical deductions, we can conclude that one should live in a way for the natural calm/peaceful state of being, and that each personality is worthy of existence regardless of "feelings" until they no longer exist, correct?


First thing YOU should do is go study up on what "logical deductions" are. You just posed a bunch of rhetorical questions that you presupposed the answer upon from your own belief structures. That is not a "logical deduction", lol...


9) We can also conclude that, if word, thought, or action arise from anger, hatred, love, or desire of such emotions, they do not arise from true nature, but from emotion or desire, and only that which arises from the calmness is actually representative of one's true dominant nature, correct?


Oh my.... so many loaded phrases and so much bad logic my head hurts! Glad there were many dedicated monks who put down the Buddha's teachings in writing, and philosophers like Epictetus and Socrates who wrote extensively and clearly on these things, so we don't get confused by people like you! Sheesh...



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 


I asked if the quality of existence is to exist, and you answered "no, it just IS", what do you think the word "to be" means? It means to exist, so you basically agreed. Sure, quality is a human WORD, but it EXISTS, if I say what are qualities of trees, you can say, wood, hard, brown, green, leaves, tall, etc. So you fail with your logic.

And after that nonsense post, I think it is my cue to type the other logical perspective of existence...

The only thing in existence is Truth, since lies can not exist only in the mind as a deception. If a lie manifest in reality, it is no longer a lie, deception, it is Truth. If someone is using mind-trickery to make someone think that a lie is existing in reality, then it is still not truth, it is an ACT, a HOAX, and ILLUSION, a DECEPTION.

Existence is Truth
The only Quality of Existence is "To Be"
So Truth IS and a Lie is NOT...

If you say "I Am" you are saying "I Exist" or you are saying "I am TRUTH", since Existence (What is actually in reality) is Truth (Real).

To deviate from Truth is to deviate from Reality (Existence) therefore we should value Honesty as the highest Virtue since it IS existence.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme


7) The quality of life, is to live, correct?


Ummm, no. To be alive is to live. Quality comes from the state of which one is living.


8) we can conclude that one should live in a way for the natural calm/peaceful state of being,


One should live in a way that doesn't deny the definition of 'human', which is to live and experience the range of emotions that make us human.


9) We can also conclude that, if word, thought, or action arise from anger, hatred, love, or desire of such emotions, they do not arise from true nature,


They arise directly from true nature. The only way to maintain a consistent state of calm and peace is through medication. THIS is not true nature.
edit on 8/5/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
While there is much to admire with the OP's post, and it might elicit relaxation in some, I must say such mental exercises have not worked in my anxiety attacks, and only made them worse.

Relaxation for me then is a set of activities to fill the void of thought, rather than to entertain it further.

I also cannot agree on "social constructions", perhaps only in the sense that thinking about them will draw the mind away from existential anxiety.

The term "social construction" is bandied about lightly these days.
In fact, social constructions are deeply embedded in culture and individual personalities.
To challenge them is very difficult, and mostly only ever partly successful.
They tend to entrench themselves deeper, even as they are challenged.

So I wouldn't mix this all together like that, but I'd rather find a good mantra and follow the original culture, like Buddhism.

But it's a good insight nevertheless.
But ultimately few faiths have really successful monks like that, and most of those have "fallen" if one does a bit of research.
The natural sate is one of variance - happiness, sadness, anger - nobody is the same all the time.
Why should that be good?

Many people would say if you're always happy in a group then you've joined a cult, because always being perky and Pollyanna-like was certainly an instantly recognizable feature of many 1970s cults.

Nobody can be always loving, stress-free and happy.
That's not how our minds work, and whoever promises that is suspect and should be avoided at all costs.
edit on 5-8-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
The natural sate is one of variance - happiness, sadness, anger - nobody is the same all the time.
Why should that be good?

Many people would say if you're always happy in a group then you've joined a cult, because always being perky and Pollyanna-like was certainly an instantly recognizable feature of many 1970s cults.

Nobody can be always loving, stress-free and happy.
That's not how our minds work, and whoever promises that is suspect and should be avoided at all costs.


You and jiggerj are correct. Maybe I should not have used the word "natural" as it may mislead people depending on their perspective; I should have only said "dominant" instead.

Calmness is dominant because it is what you feel when there is no negative or positive stimulation to life... It is just "BEING".

All of the emotions arise from this state, that was my point. It is being able to understand that calmness is the root while going through they emotions...

By the way, I am against denial of emotions, RELEASING emotions, yes, CHANGING emotions yes, but to DENY, no. To deny is to be against truth.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The thing is, being "human" is being two beings at once. On one side you have the higher intellect that can reason, rationalize, and realize. On the other side you have the animal, the beast, the living creature.

To be "human" is very relative. I, for example, prefer to try to eschew large portions of the animal human so as to hlp me drive focus. Others do the same with different animal behaviors.

The intellectual human is, typically, calm and reserved. This is the cool, rational, reasoning being. The animal human can provide lots of noise which corrupts the "signal" of the intellectual human. This is our base desires, our emotions, our non rational behaviors and actions.

I hunt, as that is part of a core human-animal aspect. But I generally do not involve myself in the more social human-animal aspects. I can cope well in a social situation, but i don't enjoy it and don't generally seek it out.

I think each of us has our various mix of the duality of human being.
I guess what you have to ask is, are you this duality? Or are you one or the other? What is human, our body or our personality? And how much of our personality is impacted by the animal human?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 

Well thanks for the clarification.

I know that many people when they leave strict Eastern-style cults struggle to "feel" again.
In ISKCON also there is this notion that a devotee shouldn't feel sorrow or joy (outside worship).
So there is a sense of this "neutral mode".
Hence my concern and clarification.

Just to add, many people enjoy their faiths and find that all enlightening, but others also come out feeling manipulated and worse.
It's very relativistic to experience.
edit on 5-8-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by jiggerj
 

...The intellectual human is, typically, calm and reserved. This is the cool, rational, reasoning being. The animal human can provide lots of noise which corrupts the "signal" of the intellectual human. This is our base desires, our emotions, our non rational behaviors and actions...

...I think each of us has our various mix of the duality of human being.
I guess what you have to ask is, are you this duality? Or are you one or the other? What is human, our body or our personality? And how much of our personality is impacted by the animal human?


You are dissecting reality into parts and causing this duality. It is not "the human intellect" vs. "the human animal", it is not "the one" or "the other", they are both PARTS making up a WHOLE "The Human Being".

Honestly/Truth will cause the balance of when to use which.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Oh, i know this. I am talking through it so i can wax philosophical with everyone else.


Its the reason i had that last sentence in there....they are an integrated same.
edit on 5-8-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join