![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Uprooting So-Called “Irrational” Behavior
If… Then
All people at all times act according to logic.
That is, all behavior is governed by the law of cause and effect. Logic could be considered as a mental tool for investigating cause effect sequences. If this occurs, then do this. The “if… then” statement is both the foundation of computer programming and of programming (and re-programming) the human biocomputer.
The only reason behavior ever seems to be illogical or irrational is because one is not aware of the assumptions upon which action is based. Assumptions are the starting values which are fed into the “if… then” statements upon which the human biocomputer operates.
When fed into the “if… then” statement “If x > 6, then y = blue”, x = 5 will yield a different y result than setting x = 7. Both will lead to completely logical outcomes. If x is equal to five, then y will not be blue, whereas if it is seven then it will be blue.
If assumptions are equal to values fed into “if… then” statements, then emotional responses are roughly analogous to the logical outcomes of those statements. Let’s try it with a more practical example:
“If I hear thunder, then I become frightened.”
So the person uttering the above statement, upon hearing thunder becomes frightened. Fear is an emotional response, but it is triggered by a purely logical cause effect construct. With me so far?
I said above that assumptions are like values fed into an “if… then” statement, which was a useful way to think of it at first. But in this example, it’s more useful to modulate our analogy so that the stimulus of “thunder” becomes the value fed into the logical machine. The assumption here becomes the “if… then” statement itself. The assumption is that there is or needs to be a cause effect relationship between a stimulus and an emotional state.
Assumptions Make An Ass Out of You And Me
This is the only part of human behavior which might be considered less than logical. Our assumptions themselves may be illogical, irrational, wrong, crappy, poorly thought-out, or anything else. But all of our actions, our “if… then” statements of stimulus-response built on top of these assumptions are all completely rational and completely logical.
So where do irrational assumptions come from? I wrote about this earlier: they come from the organizational system applied by your brain whenever you are confronted with a novel learning moment. That is, when you encounter stimuli you haven’t encountered before.
Your brain is always seeking to conserve computational energy. It is one of the fundamental assumptions according to which the brain logically organizes its own behavior. Consequently its first line of defense upon meeting new stimuli is to correlate it associatively to other stimuli in its memory banks which match some of the characteristics of the novel stimuli. In this way it saves energy by creating a shortcut to something else that already exists which is loosely related. Your brain does this automatically, which means it does it unconsciously.
[This is where symbols come from in the human mind: they are writhing masses of novel learning moments which have been hyper-linked and cross-indexed together around repeated stimulus patterns. It only makes sense that all the most important symbols in human culture would be centered around the types of stimulus events which most commonly occur in the lifespan of a human organism: sex, death, fear, love, etc.]
After a certain age (I have no idea when, exactly), the brain has constructed what it believes to be a fairly complete depiction of how life works. It has imprinted upon itself a number of associative centers (symbols), which it finds adequate for the explanation or at least the organization of all new stimulus. For many people, if not most, this means that they shut down all but completely to novel information, because they allow their brain to do what it does best, and file things away according to whatever associative shortcuts exist within their own mind.
Open Imprint Points
As I said earlier though, the way your brain organizes completely *new* stimuli when they are first encountered and your neuronal pathways are still open (or have been re-opened) to imprinting is that it flash-freezes groups of new stimuli together. It usually does this most strongly around traumatic events: things which cause a stress response in the physical body. Your brain remembers in intricate detail the configuration of colors, chemicals, smells, sounds, people, emotions, etc which accompanied the arrival of particularly potent new stimuli. It flash-freezes that moment as an anchor or reference point, essentially. In this way, the brain is still trying to employ the associative method: it is trying to associate new stimulus to existing stimuli. Except in this case it is only associating it because of spatial-temporal proximity, as opposed to analyzing for commonality of characteristics or surrounding concepts.
It is because of this flash-freezing of traumatic reference points / novel learning moments that the brain begins to form assumptions upon which it later builds logical constructs to guide behavior. The assumptions it builds are not necessarily “illogical” because they are always built upon data gathered from clusters of stimuli present together within a moment.
The first time you heard thunder you were afraid. Thunder and fear thus become associated. It is a completely natural linking, and in a sense it is altogether logical because they did occur together in space and time. Since one of your brain’s primary functions is to conserve computational energy, it then abstracts from that an “if… then” statement. It is not irrational or necessarily “wrong” that your brain should put stimuli clustered together in space-time into cause effect sequences. It is simply a matter of your brain trying to conserve energy, as constant computation is not conducive to the survival of a biological organism. Your brain is trying to do you a favor by creating assumptions: it is trying to keep you alive.
There is, however, a big difference between simply staying alive and actually Living.
Stayin’ Alive
You stay alive by following certain rules (assumptions) which were likely imprinted into you as valuable behavioral shortcuts while you were a child. These shortcuts allow you to quickly organize information into meaningful patterns upon which logical action may then be taken. This is intrinsically linked to survival, and as such is closely tied into the biology of your body. Remember, your brain thinks it is doing you a favor. And it is: it is keeping “you” alive.
“You” in this sense is your ego. Your ego is nothing more and nothing less than the sum total of all the assumptions upon which the logic of your day-to-day behavior and decision-making is built. Your ego, then, is built from associative chains of stimulus piled upon stimulus and rules abstracted from how these are clustered together in space and time. Its purpose is to guide you as a biological organism away from negative and seek positive stimulus. Survival, in other words. And it keeps you alive by chaining you to shortcuts.
Unfortunately, for many of us, these shortcuts become a prison. We act without understanding that our actions are logical extensions of associations between stimuli and emotional response and assumptions abstracted from those relationships. So we only dimly understand what we’re doing. Our decisions seem to have a life of their own. We fall into repeated patterns with ourselves and others which we can’t seem to shake no matter how hard we try.
And even more destructive than a lack of understanding ourselves and the assumptions according to which the logic of our lives operate is the tendency we have to unconsciously apply our own root assumptions and associations to explain the behavior of other people. In some cases, this may yield favorable results, but they tend to be few and far between. The simple truth is that for each biological organism, for each person sealed off in the time-space vessel of their body, there is a unique set of flash-frozen original reference points upon which other novel learning moments have been piled associatively. And there is a different set of assumptions which have been automatically crafted by the pattern-seeking brain, upon which behavior is then built.
So while it may be true that all human behavior is governed by logical “if… then” statements, the values being fed into and pulled out of those statements are by necessity different from organism to organism, as are the statements themselves. Each person then is acting logically, but each is acting according to their own logical constructs based upon their accumulated experiences.
The most common mistakes then in human life spring from two things: (1) not being consciously aware of what your own associations and resultant assumptions are, and (2) attempting to apply your associations and assumptions to explain someone else’s behavior. When you are caught in number (1) you feel buffeted by circumstance, unable to take a stand and to get yourself out of a rut. When you are caught in number (2) you become angry at others and hurt by their actions, because to you they are not “logical” since their assumptions don’t match your assumptions, and are therefore automatically considered as invalid or “wrong”, while you are “right.”
“To Conquer Death You Only Have to Die”
Therefore, two important tasks are set before anyone who wants to truly Live life, as opposed to merely surviving:
First: You must be able to be clear with yourself about the basic “if… then” assumptions you are operating according to. This is very difficult, because your ego is built out of these assumptions, and your ego’s job is to steer you away from negative into positive things. From the ego’s perspective, the most negative thing in the world is the direct threat posed to itself by honest self-inquiry and analysis of assumptions and associations. When you do this, the ego is going to initiate any type of negative responses it can muster out of the patterns which it has accumulated: fear, anger, hate, anxiety, etc. It will throw up whatever it can to make you stop analyzing associations and assumptions, because it knows logically (and it is not wrong) that its own death lies in such activity. The ego’s logical flaw, in this case though, is that it believes itself to be isomorphic with the organism which it serves: that is, it believes that if it dies, then the body dies. This is an associative linkage which is correct when applied in reverse though: that physical death necessitates ego death. So, in some sense, the ego isn’t wrong: it just has things backwards.
(We’ll talk more about practical techniques for applying this in subsequent installments)
Second: when you can become aware of the associations and assumptions which underly your own behavior, you can begin to change them. Awareness creates choice. The statement, “If I hear thunder, then I become frightened,” can turn into, “If I hear thunder, then I have the option of becoming frightened.” You also have the option of not becoming frightened, or of using the stimulus trigger of “thunder” to help you achieve some other designed state. This seems to me to be the basis of techniques such as hypnosis and NLP: exposing assumptions, picking apart the associations which originally caused them to be constructed, and then consciously choosing to create new associations, and new assumptions on top of them.
As you gain the ability to choose new emotional responses, you will gain the perspective or distance required to see that other people are often (meaning almost always) operating according to entirely different assumptions from yours. And you will see that this doesn’t automatically invalidate their actions or make them necessarily wrong or illogical. That doesn’t necessarily make them “right” either, but it should allow you the room for compassion and increased insight into the decision-making and behavior which other people employ, and the struggles they face as humans.
Once you are aware of your assumptions, you can change them. Once you can choose to change them, you become aware of other people operating according to different assumptions. Once you reach that level, your optimal (what works best / best possible) pathway becomes plainly stating to others what your assumptions are and asking them to do the same. Even if the other party hasn’t necessarily gone through the above stages, creating clarity in your own communications and relationships inspires others to do the same (because your brain values clarity more than it values the ego).
August 13th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Getting outside the algorithim:
root mind
August 13th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Ruiz talks about not making assumptions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Agreements
August 13th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
It is interesting to me that Ruiz uses negative injunctions in two of his ‘agreements’.
As I understand it, based on some exposure to NLP & the like, the mind is an accretion of experience: you can’t take something away, only add to your experience.
When you try to take away/ negate bad habits, the ego/mind, being a highly refined survival mechanism & the ultimate ‘hoarder’, never really lets stuff go, instead tucking away & cross referencing it for later possible use (thus we can experience phenomena such as synchronicity, etc.).
This may be why, for instance, weight loss can be horribly problematic, because the very thought of ‘losing’ weight throws the subconscious into a frenzy of worry: why should I lose it? I may need it for later… what if an asteroid hits & food becomes scarce; I’ll need the fat stores then…’ etc, etc. Kinda goofy but very survival- minded in its own way & sensible… according to a very primal form of logic. Thus, despite weight loss, often the body tends to revert ‘back’ to being overweight because of that subconcious fear of loss; its not really a fear even, so much as it is a state of being fundamentally opposed to the proposed basic structure of the human mind. Rather than weight loss, in this example, one would focus on creating a fit, appealing body… thereby restructuring the state of being in an elastic manner as opposed one of negation & loss…
At any rate, Tim, before I digress too much… what might be some of your thoughts regarding this? I have noticed that you have made a number of referrals to Ruiz & his four agreements over time, & while I don’t fundamentally disagree with the basic gist of what he is saying, I do wonder if there is a better way of saying it. Perhaps there isn’t, but perhaps there is…
August 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Excellent post Tim! I wrote about this recently in my “Conscious Thinking” series.
What I love about your take on this subject, is the context you have put it into. The use of computer terms, I feel, casts a very clear light.
Now, I have been considering how (and if?) Intuition fits into this. Any thoughts on that?
August 13th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Yeah, never, ever try to lose weight. It’s impossible. You can change your lifestyle, get fit, try new forms of discipline etc., those work. “Losing weight” is like saying you want to lose the last few decades of your life. I’m not an adult anymore (the person I grew to be) I’m 10 years old, or 3 or 19. You detect the imbalance and put the weight back on to correct things. You’ve written off that person as dead so your brain won’t let you continue in a dead person’s body because it’s seen as more unhealthy that the weight.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Ruaiamiaini,
My point was that maybe getting past thinking in terms of algorithims, through meditation might be the way.
That’s what “Then…If” is, algorithmic thinking. Negative injunctions don’t get outside the algorithmic thinking.
I was wondering about that because what Tim seems to be talking about is reprogramming your own algorithims, making them more coherent and rational.
This peaked my interest because I am trying to figure out what mind is. If its an emergent property of the brain, or if its the foundation of reality.
I would guess Tim, that you would choose the latter but this post seems to support the former.
Anyway, I know my mind is no doubt screwed up with irrational algorithims, but I wonder at the prospect of being able to reprogram them with different, better logic.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Ted, I tend to think that there is a difference between the conditioned mind, and the conscious / aware / awake mind.
I get the impression that Tim is talking about the former, and that awareness of the conditioned mind helps you to enter the latter. At least that is how I was reading it.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I enjoy thinking of the organic protoplasm that we call ‘brain’ to be the 3D temporal manifestation of whatever it is that we ‘are’… sort of an incomplete manifestation of our higher dimensional self ‘dipping’ a tendril ‘down’ into this plane of temporal solids. Almost like a higher dimensional broadcast/ receiver antennae… or sumthin’… that accretes material substance, our bodies, so that it might more readily effect change upon this more ’substantial’ level of reality.
To separate mind & body (or soul for that matter), I suspect, is to - in effect - be putting on self-imposed blinders to the fact that we - our totality, as it were - is all the same ’stuff’. To forsake the body, for instance, would be to forsake the soul… and vice versa. I’ve always found beauty in the doctrine of the resurrection for that simple fact: its all good…
August 13th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Oooh! I like that!
August 13th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Ah, hmm… Yeah, I don’t know.
I just put black electrical tape over all the logos and brand names in my immediate field of vision. You don’t know how nice that feels until you try.
I also finished memorizing the Gettysburg Address today. It’s better to set yourself to accomplishing small concrete tasks than to spend time pondering imponderables. This is where self-mastery comes from, and all knowledge flows out of it.
I do have a diagram that I drew the other day which might help though.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Not taking anything away from your self mastery thing, I think thats cool and everything, but for me anyway, this brain vs. mind thing has real life implications for the direction of my life.
I guess for me self mastery would be getting to the place where I can solve this.
But Hey, I can understand if you think it misses the whole point of what you are saying.
So I can butt out.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
What are these implications?
How do you plan on getting to that place?
I didn’t say that. I meant that I didn’t know how to respond because the questions aren’t the ones I’m currently wrestling with.
That’s a very defensive emotional response, wouldn’t you say? What is the stimulus which triggered it? Is it required by these circumstances?
August 13th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I’m not defensive, I just wonder if I hang out at your blog too much and worry that I might high jack discussions, away from the point you are trying to make. I know that in real life conversations I have a tendency to do that, so i try to watch it.
As to the other stuff, The implication for me is vast. Basically I see this question as being a big part of the Life work of Philip K Dick. What’s the difference between an android and a human being? That was a huge question for him.
There are people today who would answer “nothing” that our brains are a computer and that consciousness is nothing more than an “emergent property” of our brains. Often people with this view think that, some day we humans will achieve imortality by transfering our consciousness from a carbon base to a silicone base.
I think its a huge question. I think that for people that can clearly see this situation and choose one or the other, there are huge ramifications. I think a materialist worldview leads to nihilism. It was leading me to nihilism.
I think the only way out of this is gnosis. I think the answer to this question is a large part of the whole purpose of my life.
See, I had a bicamral mind for 20 years. I had a “genius” living in my mind or what Socrates would call a “daimon” I wrestled with the ramifications of having access to God’s voice at all times in my head.
Julian Jaynes premise is that the ancients all heard the voice of God and didn’t experience consciousness the way modern people do. I have good reason to believe that this time is coming again and will lead to the redemption of all creation. The “Zebra” as PKD called it is on the process of swallowing the whole world.
But anyway, i cut myself off from this ever present alien intelligencem living in my mind. But now somewho through reading PKD’s cosmogony and cosmology we have been reuinited.
I feel like a hound dog following a trail. But i have a sense that this path will lead to a change in the universe as we know it, through humanities perception of it.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. (1 John 3:2-3)
August 13th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
You too? No wonder we get along.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
:)
August 13th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Really good post. I hope you write more on what you mentioned in your last paragraph, about being clear about assumptions not only to yourself but to other people. I wonder what starts to happen when people do this around each other, how relationships and groups change, what they are able to accomplish as teams.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I am only beginning to see these effects take shape. So far it is incredibly powerful though, and extraordinarily simple. I guess to me, right now, enacting these changes in my life is far more important than a lot of the more theoretical questions used to be. Certain things come into focus when you start acting this way.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
This is McLuhan about James Joyce via his son Eric McLuhan via Alchemical Braindamage. When I read it I felt it resembeled the path traveled by your site lately.
http://www.antigonishreview.com/bi-106/106-mcluhan.html
August 13th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
http://www.drizzle.com/~stacyg/GuidedObservation.html
Also from that: “By returning to what we can actually perceive, we have a chance to make fresh choices about what we think and do, free from preexisting conditions.”
August 13th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
“We cannot reach the objective except through the medium of the subjective. This is the underlying reason for esoteric studies: they allow the exterior man to give objective validity to his subjective mentality. He can achieve this by a technique analogous to one we apply to precision instruments: before putting them to work, we determine the reading error of each.
“By taking the ’subjectivity’ of instruments into account in this way, we obtain correct readings from them, in spite of their flaws. To observe the phenomena of our internal world and those of the external world with precision, we must have recognized and determined the reading error of our mental instrument for observation, one of the main tools of the Personality. All esoteric teaching is oriented towards this goal, which is reached with the second Birth-when man attains a new form of consciousness and existence which is quite different - objective - and which exterior man can only represent to himself in a vague and obscure way. [ …]
“Our perception of time varies. This is true in two ways: it varies from one person to another and, for each person, it varies with his physical or mental condition. The influence of age, health and emotional state are well enough known.
“Beside these general examples, there exist particular cases where the disappearance of time is complete: for example, during dreamless sleep, a brief loss of consciousness, or under general anaesthesia. The loss of the notion of time in such cases is due to physiological causes.
“But time can also be made to disappear by voluntary, conscious effort, especially an effort of concentration. By practising the latter assiduously, we observe this phenomenon from the very first exercises. As we intensify our concentration more and more, we perceive time less and less.
“If, by methodical and sustained effort, we manage to eliminate everything from our field of observation apart from the physical or moral object on which we concentrate, and if, in addition, we are able to hold this fixed attention on a single point - which gives birth to contemplation - time entirely disappears.
“Conversely, the more man’s attention is dispersed, the more time drags for him. This phenomenon is objective in itself. It is a law. Its reason for being - as well as the mechanism by which it works - will be explained later, in the Doctrine of the Present.
“It is interesting to point out another phenomenon: our ability to modify the rate of our own perception of time. This happens many times every day. We pay no attention to it, because this phenomenon occurs mechanically on a small scale. But it can also be produced voluntarily on a much larger scale.”
Boris Mouravieff, Gnosis, Vol. I
August 13th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Bumper sticker:
Don’t believe everything that you think
August 13th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
in nlp the assumptive phase of the if…..then modality is called a pre-supposition.
what we discover in nlp is that the pre-suppositions are fluid and flexible.
and so that changes the if….then program.
if we pre-suppose, for instance, that as we age then it becomes more difficult to lose weight, then as we age we have an excuse to gain weight.
but it is clear logically that there are thin seventy-year-olds.
so pre-suppositions collapse and a new one can be installed.
the nlp practitioner is sensitive to how pre-suppositions can be accepted as solid and immutable in the client and so with the correct approach an appeal can be made to logic and a new pre-supposition can be installed.
we are all master logicians and breath-takingly constistant in our application of logic.
the precepts is where we are vulnerable and where media gets us every time.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Precepts?
August 14th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Not surprising to me. What is it that makes a person willing to face their deepest assumptions with honesty? What is it that makes a person willing to believe in something as absurd as the value of paper currency? I don’t need to tell you the profound power that sleeps in the word “trust”. Please, think deeply and tread lightly, my friend.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:25 am
“It’s fine. Just take it”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vz_YTNLn6w
August 14th, 2007 at 4:11 am
> it is keeping “you” alive.
A chap called Argyris did experiments in the 70’s where he essentially beat his subjects assumption-systems into submission with the aid of a tape-recorder, demonstrating to them that certain cherished assumptions about the effects of their actions were almost entirely bullshit. It was a painful process: subjects would protect their assumption-systems (he called them ‘theories of action’) with all their might. It eventually became apparent why: without a ‘theory of action’, his subjects would eventually reach a crisis point at which they became /unable to act/. Their mental survival systems had been incapacitated. However, they retained the ability to rediscover /for themselves/ new ways of acting which more closely linked intent and effect.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Don’t you feel though, that your personal perspective of what you are terming as “self-mastery” is an “incredibly powerful” fact of life. Whilst on the other hand people who have a different perspective would merely say to you; “Hey, nice theoretical concept mate!”
Would you say that, for someone who hasn’t experienced something - then that thing is a theoretical notion, rather than an actionable fact? I don’t mean everyday activities or things such as sky-diving. I mean more along the lines of Leary’s and Wilson’s Eight Circuits. For someone with experiences of the fifth or sixth circuit these circuits are actionable fact. For someone that never got past the third circuit though - all the rest may appear as mere theoretical possibilities.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:17 am
sorry…..tired. not precepts, pre-suppositions.
one has to ask, at some point, where our pre-suppositions come from.
whoever has control of the installation of pre-suppositions has control of the mind(s).
August 14th, 2007 at 8:19 am
like derren brown……..
british media, like thier entire society, is about 15-20 years ahead of ours.
what would the effect of broadcasting derren brown on tv here be?
August 14th, 2007 at 10:00 am
ahead of us in what way?
Isn’t the UK a mess?
August 14th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I thought Scandanavia was the Socialist Utopia.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:16 am
> Isn’t the UK a mess?
Interesting presupposition ;-D
August 14th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Well, I just read a couple books. One about Soccer thugs, another by a conservative guy there who thinks the culture has gone down the toilet. Then I keep reading stuff on the internet about “chavs” and on the news I see Them having all these Subway bombings and so forth that smack of 911 type manipulation. They had Tony Blair. Billionaires are moving to London from New york. So obviously there is profound wealth disparity there.
It didn’t strike me as being a place free of all the types of Problems we lament in the US.
But I don’t doubt that people in UK on average are more sophisticated than Americans. I just was wondering if they are “ahead” somehow. I think maybe they may just have more witty observations about the world going down the toilet.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:51 am
ahead in the sense that things that are just now occuring here are well in evidence there.
here is a short list;
immigration issues. (politcally incorrect, but real.)
failure of socialised medicine.
big brother type intrusive surviellance, such as cameras in all civic thoroughfares.
active social welfare system. when i got my “o” levels in 1977 i got a dole cheque with them.
re-tribalised media that we are just now seeing here with “reality” shows and chris angel, but nothing of the strength of derren brown.
and when i said ahead, you assumed i meant in a good way.
go to www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com and listen to alan watt for a few minutes. he clearly spells out what we are heading for and have been for centuries.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:19 am
don’t judge your relationships solely by how they make you feel.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:23 am
take off your watch for a day. Then a week. Try and Know the time, by the angle and brightness of sun, the rhythm of movement around you, the Time of the Y-ear.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Jwx,
I don’t wear a watch and that’s pretty much what I do. I can tell what time it is, within 20 minutes or so at all times. Like saturday, I went tubing down the Wisconsin river for 8 hours and just before we got back to the car I guessed the time within 15 minutes.
So, Like, what is the advantage of this? I mean the only reason I care what time it is is because I am conditioned by living in a world that runs on time. if I didn’t, this ability I have would cease to be valuable.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Alistair,
Yeah, Now I see what you mean.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
It is posted for people that wear watches. It is another exercise in stalking one’s self and working for wakefulness. If this is not important to you than you will not see the value in it nor try to show it to other people to whom it might be of value. I have found it of great value to myself, but generally not by the “practical” standards of this realm.
Why did you do this in the first place, not using a watch? Was it an unconscious act? Maybe something good for you to think about. Then again maybe not.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I am just curious. I don’t wear watches because they give me a rash.
I would like to live in a world where I don’t need to know what time it is. If anything I have a watch inside my brain, so I am more calibrated than most people to the rat race. I have intenalized it more.
So I was just wondering if there was a way to use this ability I have to my advantage. I look at it as being a response to anxiety. I am anxious about the time so I have come up with a way to keep track of it at all times. I mean, I’m not over burdened with anxiety, but when I am on vacation I try to forget what time it is.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Nice :>)
August 14th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
The Bourne Trilogy movies are wonderful allegory for the process of being rebourne/reborne/reborn, reborn, reborn, reborn, reborn…………………….
Ludlum was a master at slipping powerful stuff past the gatekeepers of mass media.
remember and dis-meme-ber, they go hand in hand. The presents of mind, mined for a heart of gold. Milo minderbinder keeps you in a catch-22.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
the progressive re-membering of Chastity Perspicacity, and her/his mounting of Pegasus allows progressive identification of higher and higher signal to noise ratio sources. As part of this one is able to identify the gatekeepeers (bekeepers) in their increasingly subtle manifestations. Think dazzled by bbls, i.e. baubles.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I’m no longer convinced there are actual gatekeepers
August 14th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I am not either, I am presently biased towards their existence (pretty strongly) but when you really start thinking about them they seem quite paradoxical.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I definitely believe that we have habitually built in blinders controlling our behavior and responses to stimuli, but that’s as far as I’d take it. Once you overcome that a “gatekeeper” is just the same as any other kind of person.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
i think that our mental sphere(ego, personality, whatever we now consider as us) is a combination of installed programing, personal narrative (the story that you tell yourself about your past, present and future) and a few other factors.
Thats what 28 years of reasoning and personal “testing” on the subject (my life) have brought to me.
When buddhists and yogi’s say that the self is impermanent, and that re-incarnation is possible this is what they mean (IMHO). You are ever changing, new programs are installed by yourself and others every day. These programs install new parts into your new personal narrative. The change what you think about your future, what your perception is about the present, what an event in the past means to you. Your personal narrative is your lense with which you see the world, your programming is how you react to what you percieve. There are a few other parts to this little system i have worked out, which are internal states, external states and connections between the narrative, programing and states.
The “blinders” and any internal gatekeepers are either parts of your story that won’t let the new information in, or programs that react the stimuli in a negative way (fear, defense, attack).
August 14th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
So, I cannot go most countries, at least legally, without a passport. Is that just my personal blinders?
August 14th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
What if we told you yes? Don’t ask questions you’re deciding not to recognize possible answers to.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
It’s all about how the notion of doing something illegal fits into your personal story.
The rest of it is just the physical reality of the situation.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I may be wrong, but you may want to take a look at the part of you that just gave that response. I suspect it may prove fruitful for you. Just a suggestion.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
I don’t think so. But if works for you, ok.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Real world examples, methods, practical suggestions would be helpful.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Well what do think then jwx?
Why do you think that you can’t go to most countires without a passport ?
There are thousands of reasons. Geopolitical, Economic, Sociological, Security etc. why you can’t go to another country.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I agree that practical examples, methods and actionable information are needed to backup statements like this. Otherwise it looks like another frustrating example of theory without relevance.
I will post some here and at my blog over the next few weeks. Ask me any question about it and I will provide you with my answer.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Who is that directed to and what does it mean. It is better just to be plain about these things.
Okay, my question is: What question should I ask that will prove the most valuable for your experience? What question do you want me to ask? Just tell us. We’ll ask you. It’s an easy part to play.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Interesting how you have twisted my possible example gatekeeper into an argument about going to another country without a passport (I catch myself sometimes doing this twisting unconsciously also. Often, I am fairly sure I don’t , atch this unless I have a good friend that points these inconsistincies out to me) That is why I included “at least legally”. How do you know that traveling to another country would not be considered by me? That is pretty presumptuous. How does your argument prove the nonexistence of gatekeepers? You seem damned sure, I’m not.
I’m pretty sure, in my efforts to exercise external consideration here, that I have repeatedly tried to illustrate that I consider as many possibilities as I can. and what my biases are presently, and why. I am not capable of doing this all on my own, so I seek out hi signal to noise ratio sources like Tim’s. I would guess I have thought of other ways to travel to other countries than you have not. An you have probably thought of ways that I haven’t. I am interested in those all
I have found the noise to signal ratio high in this exchange, but that happens some times, and this type of exchange often proves to be some of the best learning experiences, at least for me and others with whom I have corroborated data. Stalking myself internally and in others.
If you disagree with me and have no desire to proceed with this that is fine with me also. Just say so. And, also yours and others insight is always appreciated by me, and I am sure others also.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Doesn’t signal only become noise depending on what algorithm you’re using to parse it? I’m sure there are words that fit better to explain what I mean in information science and communications theory but I don’t know enough about it to make the point I would like to here. So I will just have to nudge in that direction.
I like that you are laying your assumptions on the line. It’s a useful exercise and needn’t be feared nor apologized for.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Yes, I was inconsiderate and got ahead of myself there, sorry, it was directed to you Tim, and again inconsiderate in thinking that necessarily I have explained myself clearly previously or that any particular person might have taken interest in particular previous posts that I have made.
This was a suggestion from me based on what I observe in myself and from the flavor that I think I got from your post (again, I very well could be wrong, this kind of thing is tough through a computer screen). I can only give you examples from what I have observed in this exchange, in particular, individual elements of my ego popping up, specifically the one that wants to convince me that I am right and you are wrong, another that is dissapointed that I am not immediately understood (it’s one of my “poor me” demons). I now often go for much longer periods than I used to without these guys popping up, and I fall into a kind of complacency, sometimes subconsciously believing that they have given in. Well, in this case I learn that they haven’t, but I also see that they are much weaker in me than they used to be, and I find that very helpful.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Hah!. That “poor me” dude slipping in again :>)
August 14th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Sounds reasonable. Most of us don’t know truly why we choose a particular algorithim to parse data, at least that was how I operated for most of my life. Maybe the more aware we become the more we are able to actually consciously choose algorithims based on our knowledge level, and therefore the idea of signal to noise ratio becomes more concrete, based on what we value the most.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
i went for a drive through southern quebec as a teenager with ym parents and we got lost driving in the high hills along country roads and eventually farmer`s paths until we discovered, to my father`s horror, that we had actually crossed the border into upstate vermont without a formal declaration at a border.
that episode occured in the early `70s.
i`m not sure that it would be possible to do that now, but i felt it appropriate to the point about going to other countries without a passport.
and regarding gatekeepers.
they exist in the corporate world to innure the executive class from the rabble……like us, who`s sole task is to convince them to subscribe to our plan.
and thier job is just to say no.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I’m not trying to prove a point or make a definitive statement, just saying feel free to ask a question about what I have written and I will expand on it.
Every communication is noise until you have the algorithm to decode the signal. There is a lot that can be said about this ie. Religion is the attempt by man to find the algorithm of the universe. OR that science is the attempt by man to find the algorithm of the universe. To find the signal (meaning) in the noise (reality). A bit off topic from what we are saying here but a point well worth making.
The a great demon (program)(daemon) to install in your own mind is the one that says 50% of the time I am right, 50% of the time I am wrong. In every circumstance I am going to observe what is going on before i determine which 50% i am currently in. Dogmatism and rigid thinking is not the way to truth, beauty, happiness, enlightenment, anything.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I think this has to do with the notion of proprioceptive awareness but I am still working on the particulars.
Why do you need to *give* us the freedom to do that? Don’t we have it anyway? Shouldn’t we? For what reasons might you assume that we don’t feel like we have it?
Towards the end of Hagakure, it says:
“Buddhism gets rid of the discriminating mind… The Chinese character for “cowardice” is made by adding the character for “meaning” to the character radical for “mind.” Now, meaning is “discrimination”, and when a man attaches discrimination to his true mind, he becomes a coward.”
August 16th, 2007 at 5:45 am
or he rationalises the intuitive and stops in his tracks.
doubting the gut is a deadly act.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
[…] It has to do with the being at the level of identifying with your shortcut habitual perceptions and reactions to the world. And this is what the ego is constructed out of: once useful logical habits upon which hinge emotional and physical reactions like colors on a painting. And this is the domain of the Demiurge. In more straightforward Christian myth, it is the Devil as the ruler of this world. In the Tarot we see the Lovers chained at the feet of the Devil, like Princess Leia on Jabba’s Pleasure Barge. […]
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
[…] Perception could simply be thought of as the processes of association which occur within your perceptual field, and which make correlative assumptions about cause and effect relationships between sensations and stimuli. Perception simply takes a snap shot of all these different factors: (1) stimuli, (2) sensation, (3) awareness of sensation. It looks at which stimuli is associated with which sensation and what the awareness of that sensation itself feels like. It looks at how these things cluster together spatial and temporal proximity (what is in the same place at the same time). […]