Teachers of the meaning of existence.

[Abstract]

@Moreno

@Abstract

Well I might agree there is a difference between intution and specualtion…in otherwords a person can do a thing by mere reaction…instinct maybe…and thus it had no cognitive functions that reaied on the speculation that it was good or that any of the reasons that one might think it was good were good and so forth…by speculation…But then in so far as relying on one’s gut feeling (if that is what is meant by intuition) I would say that relys on a person speculating that such is a good idea…

My intuition says the following: I have to rely on intuition and to not do so would be dangerous, even lifethreatening.

1. what other choice do I have in many, many situations?
2. even in those situations where I have time and perhaps I could make a go at some of these decisions by another method - I simply don’t have the energy or need.

Last, rationality depends on intuition, so I can’t see how one has any choice.

How does one make a distinction between “intuition” and “subconcious impulse” if they are one and the same then it still comes down to reasoning by consciousness. and regardless one’s concsiousness could always intervene (one’s higher state thinking), if it doesn’t in a bad intutional state then such could be called a faulty thought process anyways…i.e. negligence.

[finishedman]

@Moreno

@finishedman

Nobody knows anything about life. All we can do is form ideas and thoughts about life.

–But the above contradicts itself directly. Further the second statement asserts and then implies a whole wealth of knowledge about EVERYONE and then the situation they find themselves in. perception for example.

I was using the term ‘life’ as meaning that which is the physical/biological life of all living things. I’m afraid you have misjudged my meaning and went ahead to call out a contradiction. Instead, I would rather you take it with the realization that what is known from perception, conception or any other activity of thought is far removed from the living quality I’m referring to.

Life is all that is inside of us. The intellect is no match to the intelligence of the life of the human organism. That life is fantastic and inscrutable in so far as how it came to exist. Theories include evolution, intelligent design, etc.

The situation everyone finds themselves in, perception, etc. has to do with living together with the things around and relationships. In that sense you live in a world of your own ideas and project that onto the outside world. The act of projecting your knowledge on things gives you an identity reference point – that you as a subject exist in relation to the objects around. That is the life of the intellect or thought. Intellect and thought are dead, yet they are holding all the keys and are trying to control the life.

[lizbethrose]

JSS wrote:

An emotion has a specific direction as noted above and includes a degree of reasoning. They are distinguished from instinctive reactions by those qualifiers.

Fear is an instinct much like hunger. Fear is the response to the perception of urgent threat but that response might be any of the emotions. A primary qualifier for fear is the sense of urgency, “do something, anything, RIGHT NOW!”. Fear is very close to being an emotion in that it urges action like all instincts, but it has no particular direction of action nor deductive reasoning associated. Fear can instigate Love, Hate, Sadness, Aggression, Alertness, or anything. Urgency is what distinguishes it from merely Avoidance.

Fear is both an emotion and an instinct, which is why it’s called a ‘basic’ emotion. Basic fear is a survival mechanism-- it’s present in all animals. But in Homo sapien, fear is also an emotion in that it can be the anticipation of a possible ‘bad’–or unintended–consequence of a decision, for example. “I’m afraid of what might happen if…” Or, “I’m frightened about what will happen to world economy if the US defaults on its loans.”

Many perceptions of threats are innate, like falling and serious pain. The fear reaction merely urges to activate quickly. But due to the time that reasoning requires, fear is “the mind killer” in that urgency prevents the balanced deductive reasoning that is normally subconsciously processed.

And most of what you describe both above and below are learned–and learned through experience. You have to fall and hurt yourself first, before you learn to take care where you step. Again, this is an anticipation of dire consequences that promotes the emotion of fear.

If you have your hand in the back of an old TV and suddenly feel something that you perceive as possibly the beginning of a high voltage shock, your response will be to suddenly jerk your hand away. But in so doing, you are likely to slam your hand into something and perhaps into the very thing that really did have a high voltage on it (I know this from experience ).

What we call emotions begin at a little higher level than instincts where a degree of reasoning has been included concerning how to respond not merely whether to respond. Emotions are usually not consciously felt unless the action being requested is inhibited or delayed. During the inhibition period, the urge to respond is sensed by the conscious which is usually doing the inhibiting as it attempts to balance other concerns into an ordered final reaction.

See my above responses.

If there is no delay between the urge to act and the action being taken, the conscious doesn’t sense the emotion as a “feeling”, but merely watches the resultant response. In such non-delayed reacting, we usually refer to ourselves as “not thinking, but just doing”. Women have the notable reputation for not allowing that time for cognitive processing and insisting that men not give such time to thought either, “be spontaneous”, unless they are urging to do something she doesn’t like and then they should either be more considerate (thinking more of her perspective) or change their “feelings” (emotions), while at the same time insisting that she cannot and should not be asked to change or control her own emotions. And the infamous argumentation begins.

The male is partially “feminized” by physiologically removing his ability to inhibit his emotions through cognitive inhibitors (located in the frontal lobe if I remember correctly). The result is a greater temptation to cry, lose discipline, and behave irrationally. He is said to be more “emotional”, but in reality, he is merely less balanced and self-controlled because he cannot inhibit emotional urges as his brain was originally designed to do. He becomes more childlike with less patience and urge to be mature and responsible.

The rest of your post is silly nonsense that has nothing to do with either the OP or ‘fear’ as a basic emotion.

[lizbethrose]

If I may iterate what’s been said before. Protohumans may or may not have had a ‘burning desire’ to know the ‘meaning of life/existence’. But the various genera classified as Homo certainly had minds–often very good ones, or they wouldn’t have been able to go beyond the cave, create tools, or expand cultures. In short, they wouldn’t have been able to survive and grow. They did have thoughts about an after-life, as exhibited in their burial rituals, and they did have questions about what was in the unexplored world around them–otherwise they wouldn’t have walked–or sailed–over the ‘next hill’ to find out.

They had no need for a ‘salesman’ to teach them what questions to ask in order to gain power over them. They had already derived, from nature, nature gods who really did have power over them. Given those nature gods, certain strains of the Homo genera that led to Homo sapien, developed myth and ritual. Myth and ritual are essential to the human psyche even today.

If anyone disagrees with my recap, please add your thoughts.

[Moreno]

@Abstract

How does one make a distinction between “intuition” and “subconcious impulse” if they are one and the same then it still comes down to reasoning by consciousness.

I think this is a good question and not an easy one to answer. But I want to sidestep it since in context it is a response to my assertions which I stand by without necessarily being able to give you a good rule of thumb. I make decisions all the time not bases on either deduction or induction, as far as I can tell. If I were to try to reason my way to all these decisions, I would die. I would never make it to the fridge to eat. Let alone be a good worker, friend, football thrower, reader, or even, yes, someone who reasons.

[Abstract]

@Moreno

@Abstract

How does one make a distinction between “intuition” and “subconcious impulse” if they are one and the same then it still comes down to reasoning by consciousness.

I think this is a good question and not an easy one to answer. But I want to sidestep it since in context it is a response to my assertions which I stand by without necessarily being able to give you a good rule of thumb. I make decisions all the time not bases on either deduction or induction, as far as I can tell. If I were to try to reason my way to all these decisions, I would die. I would never make it to the fridge to eat. Let alone be a good worker, friend, football thrower, reader, or even, yes, someone who reasons.

Might i offer a solution:

The intuition is the subconscious interpolating things better than we can in many ways on the conscious level. I.E. the subconscious can pick up on the level of noise in a general area and nudge the person to say avoid it if it has a particular frequency associated with negativity…(like a threatening voice) even when it is beyond the volume of conscious recognition. intuition as such is good to follow often but not always so good when it is desiring a big mak due to some commercial…

ultimately though I would of course say that everything is a matter of though on some level though there are many tendencies and such that we have due to gentic makeup of our subconscious, though one might call such genetic memory…IDK

[Fixed_Cross]

How would one call this - ‘intuiting’ - ‘speculating’ … or deeper…

Anticipating… sensing, just knowing, somehow - maybe time doesnt really limit us.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJQnzmH6jgc[/youtube]

[Bosk]

@without-music

There is nothing natural about the question of the meaning of life. We had to be taught to ask the question, and we had to be taught to accept that its answer thereby defines our desire to live. Like the up-selling stereo salesman, it is the art of those teaching the meaning of life to teach us to expect what isn’t there. And just as the want for more bass was created by the first salesman to attract customers, the first of life’s meanings was taught by the first guru to attract followers. These teachers, these salesmen, are self-serving: they teach that the question is natural and necessary only so that they may provide their answer. “The human ear craves more bass; the solution: my product.”

It is too late today to undo what these teachers of the purpose of existence have done: we ask of life that it provide meaning where that question is unnatural. And let us be clear what unnatural here means: that these are the wrong questions. Meaning cannot be given, and so the question misses the point entirely: it must be created!

Even though we no longer believe in priests, we still crave only what a priest can provide.

So the entire argument bases on the preclusion of validity on the strength of articulation. The meaning of life, when verbally invoked, ceases to possess any philosophical weight. Why not just say “ohm” and not post?