I Just Don't Know What to Think Anymore

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

The only real thing thats certain...is uncertainty...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Fear not, you were making yourself clear. Which tells me I might have been successful in order for you to gather enough thoughts to reply.

And yes, as much as my brain can wrap itself around this stuff, I have thought upon this position.

I know that Western thought was strongly caught up in the Cartesian perspective and only more recently with the encroachment of Eastern thought and the more recent neuro and consciousness studies that that has fallen into disfavor with those who are interested. Yet...

And as I see it as a good that this is so, that the cogito is being toppled from its pedestal, I wonder is it not possible that we may be tossing the baby with the dishwater, in that a gem may be being passed over in our rush to do so.[quote[When there is no thinker observing, judging, moulding thought, but only choiceless awareness of the whole process of thinking, without any resistance, without battle, without conflict, then the thought process comes to an end
And there, for me, lays the rub. Choiceless. That issue, this ''concept' this 'illusion' of free will is just to big for me to abandon at this point, for to me, it is the paramount issue.

I think of free will as a goal, one that is not just granted to us by God or our nature. Rather I see it as an achievement a push towards autonomy out of an existence of just being. And existence of doing at a fundamental and existential level. I see this as a necessity for creation. And that leads to another issue.

Is this creation or just happenstance in an existence that just is, rather than just isn't. In an existence of pure happenstance then why bother with anything other than just going with the flow, making ourselves as happy as we can, living in the illusion of free will and self uniqueness. To me, that is a cosmic joke, one that I do not find so funny. In an existence of happenstance, to have all these urges to move, to develop, to change somehow within us speaks to a formless void poking itself with non-existent promises.

I want things to make sense. And while cogito makes sense to a degree, it does not make enough sense for all the questions that arise from it. Likewise the perspective espoused by Krishnamurti and others, which I fee a strong tug towards, also makes sense, but just not enough for all the questions that arise from it in juxtaposition with an conceptual existence with a higher function than merely floating in a lake of unconsciousness. (even as I grow to relish that ).

The very bad thing about internet conversations like this is that you would have stopped me at least a half dozen times in this rambling, as I would have yours, but we don't. Point after point need refining, the refining of at least two minds to keep the conversation on a mutual course and I fear that this solo endeavor ( at least for the last half dozen paragraphs may have veered so far astray from the point that I can no longer recall just what that point was.

So, and I chuckle as I type this,,, any thoughts?

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

That's the only impossibility.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

.[quote[When there is no thinker observing, judging, moulding thought, but only choiceless awareness of the whole process of thinking, without any resistance, without battle, without conflict, then the thought process comes to an end
And there, for me, lays the rub. Choiceless. That issue, this ''concept' this 'illusion' of free will is just to big for me to abandon at this point, for to me, it is the paramount issue.

When Kritnamurti says 'choiceless awareness' - he means that you cannot choose what is going to appear to you - as in, if a bird flies past the window you cannot choose not to see it. So when a thought appears you also cannot choose not to see/hear it. Thoughts arise at the same time as they are seen/heard. But the illusion is that 'you' choose thoughts - that 'you' are responsible for them. No one is responsible for the thoughts or feelings that arise - because there is no one separate to what is happening.

The idea of not having free will maybe terrifying but it is freedom for 'you' and freedom for everything. Who is there to blame?
Just kick back and enjoy the show. It is no different than watching a movie - you cannot change what appears on the screen - and that includes the thoughts and feelings and emotions which you may believe are separate from the entire presentation.

What is happening is what there is - it could not be different. Now what can thought do with that?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yes, thoughts flow through us like fish in a river. And it is fairly common to associate with them thinking that the are OUR thoughts. That it is we who are thinking them and calling them forth. As you say, this is not so, at least to the extent that most of us would have it to be.

Many of those thoughts are free floating, they swim around in our neuro systems and pop up at the slightest stimulation, a breeze, a fragrance, the curve of a buttock. That we do not choose what thoughts come our way. I agree for the most part. And I also think that for the most part, for most people, those thoughts are claimed as ones own and considered to be either original thoughts or thoughts of others that can be believed. This is not what I think of when I think of thinking.

So when a thought appears you also cannot choose not to see/hear it.

I disagree on this, but not entirely. I think that when these thoughts appear we can either just go with them OR and this is the big OR, choose to let them pass with out attachment, without claiming them as our own, knowing them for what they are, fish in a stream, letting them swim by and then get on with real thinking. Contemplating. Considering.

No one is responsible for the thoughts or feelings that arise - because there is no one separate to what is happening.

And that is my point, Itsnowagain. While this is a very tempting perspective, is it really true? I think not. So,,, if there is no one separate to what is happening, how is it that I, or anyone else can even think so.

But back to the point of the thread, that by leaving behind ''what to think'' we might be able to learn ''how to think''. Saying that we do not because we are not separate from the thought to me is ''what to think'' where as I choose, and I know that word choose is seen as an illusion by many, I prefer to think it is not, that there is somewhere in all of this free will. My objective is to find it, to find autonomy from all that already is and add to it .

Spend less time thinking and more time experiencing life, one moment to the next. Limit your scope of thought as much as possible to the things in life that most directly impact your life.

Ultimately, nothing else really matters.

But back to the point of the thread, that by leaving behind ''what to think'' we might be able to learn ''how to think''. Saying that we do not because we are not separate from the thought to me is ''what to think'' where as I choose, and I know that word choose is seen as an illusion by many, I prefer to think it is not, that there is somewhere in all of this free will. My objective is to find it, to find autonomy from all that already is and add to it .

There is no separation - no separate you - so how could 'you' have free will?
How can what is complete be added to?

You will never learn how to think better - however, if thought is just seen to be arising by itself there will be no one fighting with thought, trying to control it and there would be more chance of seeing and hearing what is actual and there is more intelligence in the pure seeing (like a small child or animal).
I am blown away watching a two and a half year old child - he does not 'think' in words but he is so smart it is unreal.
I also watched a talk by Richard Feynman who was struggling at a job at a university - his boss told him to relax and don't look (seek) for anything - just wait. Inspiration and eureka moments happen when the mind is not desperately seeking for something.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

There is no separation - no separate you - so how could 'you' have free will?
How can what is complete be added to?

You say these things as if you know them. How is that. Have you come to them on your own, or have you just read them and they sounded good to you. I have read them to and the sounded good to me too, just as they do now, but I am not sure they are completely true. How can I be sure, how can you?

By saying there is no free will, you will never look for it. ok. If you are satisfied with that belief, fine.

But if there is free will, at all in this huge huge existence anywhere from the top to the bottom, it would be the ''pearl at great price, the treasure of infinity, the the goal of existence itself, and I for one will not give up the chase.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire.

So, maybe, just maybe, not knowing WHAT to think may be the first step
in learning HOW to think.

What a profound thought, I think if you do follow the MSM and eventually.rralise.the truth about them being bought and paid for, then start researching the truth it is a bit confusing too. Perhaps the poster was in that category?

Can I also have a half ounce of what you're smoking?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
You say these things as if you know them. How is that. Have you come to them on your own, or have you just read them and they sounded good to you. I have read them to and the sounded good to me too, just as they do now, but I am not sure they are completely true. How can I be sure, how can you?

By saying there is no free will, you will never look for it. ok.

It has been looked for.
It has been noticed that words come out the mouth. It has been noticed that thoughts just appear. It has been noticed that there is only what is happening.
Can you choose to give up searching for a goal?

Yes,I thought I that was a the case. a reply to: djz3ro

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
You say these things as if you know them. How is that. Have you come to them on your own, or have you just read them and they sounded good to you. I have read them to and the sounded good to me too, just as they do now, but I am not sure they are completely true. How can I be sure, how can you?

By saying there is no free will, you will never look for it. ok.

It has been looked for.
It has been noticed that words come out the mouth. It has been noticed that thoughts just appear. It has been noticed that there is only what is happening.
Can you choose to give up searching for a goal?

Yes, yes yes and why.
If it has been noticed that there is only what is happening then my quest is happening with no option of choice to give it up. It just is. In that context, free will can never be realized.
For those who have no choice but to believe the points you make it is all true because it is all there is, and ok.
But for me I either have a choice in this matter or I don't. You say I don't, yet it has been my choice to continue with this discussion unlike you who have no choice in the matter. Your continued responses are written on the winds of time as immutable fate and destiny. You have no choice, just, if what you say is true, as I don't. But you will never know other than what you know and I just might.

And certainly I feel the tug to relax, just as Feynman points out. And for as smart as Feynman was he was not right about everything. His Solid State theory was insufficient to explain the origins of this universe in light of the incoming information of emerging sciences. Had his theory been found superior to others the course of scientific study might have been altered dramatically from what it is today. For all I know it might have been better off, but, maybe not. How could we tell. But it did not explain enough of the evidence to continue being a viable course of study. (though I am not sure his understanding will not come around again which would fit nicely with all the point you make above.)

But for all indications of the Big Bang theory this local place had a beginning and now as information continues to come our way validating the continued search in that direction we can see how it all might end. Along the way there information was gathered and either utilized for a fuller understanding of reality or left by the wayside in lieu of other information. Choices were made, with cause, to follow one theory or the other theory, that is unless all that you say above is true in which case no choices were made at all and Feynman was destined to be little more than a footnote, though a glorious foot note) in scientific history.

So, back to you now. I choose to await your reply or maybe I don't and am just acting out a predetermined course of illusion and you will reply as eternity demands, or not, in line with what you must do. Will we continue with this vignette of uselessness and mindless charade like two companion stars forever circling one another or shall we move forward in exploration. Will you reply again and again until your neurons stop firing and I rely again and again until I just decide ''ah # it'' and quit responding?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Nice subject.

Thinking: Index 1986-2016

THINKING

(See also Curiosity; Imagination; Logic; Meditation; Mind; Open-Mindedness; Reasoning; Thinking Ability; Thoughts)
...
changing one’s mind: w14 12/15 17-20
...
concentrating: be 14, 25-26; g98 7/22 18-20
danger of world’s: w03 7/15 21-22; w88 6/15 18-19
dependency on words: it-2 201
...
freedom of thought: g94 6/8 20-21
...
thinking straight: w03 7/15 21-23
training “thinking faculties” (2Pe 3:1): w87 6/15 29

So many choices, which one to go with? I think I'll pick...

Think Straight—Act Wisely

IMAGINE this scene: Jesus Christ is explaining that religious enemies in Jerusalem will cause him great pain and then kill him. His close friend the apostle Peter cannot believe it. In fact, he takes Jesus aside and rebukes him. Peter’s sincerity and genuine concern are beyond doubt. But how does Jesus assess Peter’s thinking? “Get behind me, Satan!” says Jesus. “You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.”—Matthew 16:21-23.

What a shock that must have been to Peter! Instead of being a help and support, he was in this case “a stumbling block” to his beloved Master. How did this happen? Peter may have fallen prey to a common flaw in human thinking—believing only what he wanted to believe.

Do Not Be Overconfident
...
Beware of Fleshly Thinking
...
Look Out for “the Trickery of Men”

The apostle Paul also warned against “the trickery of men.” (Ephesians 4:14) He encountered “deceitful workers” who pretended to present the truth but who actually distorted it. (2 Corinthians 11:12-15) To attain their objectives, such men may resort to a selective use of evidence, emotionally loaded language, misleading half-truths, devious innuendo, and even outright lies.

Propagandists often use a word like “sect” to stigmatize others. In a recommendation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a suggestion was made that authorities who investigate new religious groups “would be well advised to forgo using this term.” Why? It was felt that the word “cult” had an excessively negative connotation. In a similar way, Greek intellectuals wrongly charged that the apostle Paul was a “chatterer,” or “seed picker.” This was to imply that he was nothing more than an idle babbler, someone who picked up and repeated only scraps of knowledge. Actually, Paul “was declaring the good news of Jesus and the resurrection.”—Acts 17:18; footnote.

Do the techniques of propagandists work? Yes. They have been a major factor in creating ethnic and religious hatreds by distorting people’s perceptions of other nations or religions. Many have used them to marginalize unpopular minorities. Adolf Hitler used such methods effectively when he portrayed the Jews and others as “degenerate,” “evil,” and a “threat” to the State. Never allow this kind of trickery to poison your thinking.—Acts 28:19-22.

Do Not Deceive Yourself

It is also easy to deceive ourselves. In fact, it may be very difficult to give up or even question deeply cherished opinions. Why? Because we become emotionally attached to our views. Then we may deceive ourselves by rationalizing—by manufacturing reasons to justify what are really mistaken and misleading beliefs.

This happened to some first-century Christians. They knew God’s Word, but they did not let it govern their thinking. They ended up “deceiving [themselves] with false reasoning.” (James 1:22, 26) One indication that we may have fallen prey to this kind of self-deception is if we find ourselves becoming angry when our beliefs are challenged. Instead of getting angry, it is wise to keep an open mind and carefully listen to what others have to say—even when we feel sure that our opinion is right.—Proverbs 18:17.

Dig for “the Very Knowledge of God”
...
“Keep On Asking God”
...
[Pictures on page 21]

Early Christians let godly wisdom, not philosophical reasoning, shape their thinking

Btw, both general and selective convenient* agnosticism falls under the terminology "philosophical reasoning". *: feigning ignorance wherever convenient or deliberately trying to remain ignorant or convincing themselves that they can't be sure of something they'd rather ignore or not think too much about, not think it through, not attempting to follow the advice provided at 1 Thess. 5:21 ("sure" is a synonym for "certain"):

Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

Compare the partly* contrasting statement in the first comment on this page by "mysterioustranger". *: or contrasting in a particular way if you think it through in comparison with the advice in Thess. If the statement of mysterioustranger is true/correct, without error/factual/certain/conclusive/absolute/definitive as he suggests it is with the way he phrased it, it would become pointless to follow the advice at Thess. If it isn't true, than one might want to consider whether making people believe that it's true might be in the best interest of any being that might not want humans to follow that advice in Thess., especially regarding any subject that relates to the Author of the bible, God. Since it helps keep them ignorant and in figurative darkness, 'in the dark' so to speak. Which might give someone a clue why that way of thinking described by mysterioustranger is so popular (at least it seems pretty popular to me as I look around and hear people who may say something similar or something that shows a similar way of thinking about it).