Intent

obsrvr524 · June 11, 2021, 9:04pm

So what you are saying is that James was positive and you are negative.

Ecmandu · June 11, 2021, 9:08pm

Im saying that James didn’t speak to hearts like I do.

MIJOT is violating as little consent as possible …

Mines much easier to understand and a much deeper discussion than James vapid MIJOT.

Sure. I can tell you this for sure. James in the spirit world is a drop of rain… no offense to him. I’m a monsoon.

obsrvr524 · June 11, 2021, 9:12pm

They say it is good to have a positive self-image — but — there IS a limit.

Ecmandu · June 11, 2021, 9:24pm

And there you go. You proved my earlier point. Existence isn’t perfect yet.

Thing is. My specialization is existence as all it is. James worked on that too.

We specialized differently. Because mine is more accessible and actually heart wrenching, James was not on the level back then that I’m at currently.

It’s nobodies fault that this is the case.

You are projecting on me obsrvr. There is a limit and you cross it constantly.

Psychologically speaking.

Your projection is simple. As an acolyte of James, you prop yourself up, so… you assume that if I just happen to be an evolution of James, that your ego is a house of cards.’

I talk to the spirits all the time. James had massive amounts of cognitive dissonance that I don’t have.

Since you relate to that cognitive dissonance … your resonant frequency vibrates more with James than me.

obsrvr524 · June 12, 2021, 5:07am

If there is one thing James didn’t have - it’s cognitive dissonance (incoherence).

Ecmandu · June 13, 2021, 11:05pm

James fucked people. You’re wrong. James was still in the game.

You know how I know this?

Because he never taught what I taught.

Two biggest problems in all existence are these:

1.) pleasurable exclusive access problem

2.) negative zero sum problem

He didn’t teach any of it… because he was ignorant.

Fixed_Cross · June 14, 2021, 1:49pm

Wendy, Ill send you the reply I made here in PM and delete it from here.

Ecmandu · June 14, 2021, 3:13pm

Interesting.

I’ll tell you my whole ‘religion’

This is a hard earned lesson. Make as many friends in spirit as you can. Some people don’t want friends… probably won’t work out too well for them.

Karma is almost intangible … it’s how much people do or don’t like or respect you.

With massive support, you have amazing karma.

With almost no support, your life will be shit.

I hope people can embrace this hard earned lesson.

MagsJ · June 16, 2021, 6:37pm

The intent of My being is to be a physically and mentally better-X-constantly-improving Self, at the dawn of each new day… daily optimisation of Self.

I aspire to be… inspiring and inspired, without any expectations expected… from either party.
Best learned lesson… humans and anything processed/unnatural… ergo toxic, do not/should not go together.

WendyDarling · June 19, 2021, 4:01am

Lately, inspiration eludes me, hinged on nuts and bolts in my youth, now it’s big ideas that seldom materialize.

Leyla · June 19, 2021, 8:59pm

If I may ask: What exactly are you doing when you practice MIJOT?

When I asked James about it, he referred me to this post ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … k#p2568931 and suggested to keep a „Diary of Joy“.

Does it work for you like that?

WendyDarling · June 19, 2021, 9:14pm

For Leyla, Obsrvr, or anybody in the know:Did James explain further about what a diary of joy would entail? Like what qualifies? I ask because some types of joy arise from our lower selves, such as laughing when others fall or at Iambiguous’ jackassery.

encode_decode · June 19, 2021, 11:57pm

Wendy, I like the down-to-earth aspect of your OP but it does not back onto much detail in how there are such things as a higher self and lower self.

What are you talking about? Lower selves?

I am not sure instinct drives you to laugh at others and I am not sure your unconscious self does that either. Are you talking in terms of a despicable self or something?

Whatever the case is, joy is much more than just constant laughter. I would say that laughter acts just as any other malfunction does but that is a complex subject. Before anyone says it, malfunction: a failure to function in a normal or satisfactory manner. I am glad I am not constantly laughing - you know - when driving, walking, and eating along with others - drinking. Things would get messed up very quickly through this type of functioning - if this was a perpetual state. Aspiration is more like the direction that the positive aspects of your nature are geared toward like optimism and hope - based around goals. Intent is no different from intention or purpose - these are things you decide on in terms of short-term and long-term goals. This is just about the inner conflict that we all can never escape - and why would anyone ever truly want to escape this, one would become a fool.

Being positive all the time sounds good but in practice is nonsense - this type of thinking comes from separating one’s self from nature - and strange as it sounds - forgetting that you were once a child. Children have no problem making meaning for themselves - adults often become chronically imbalanced - yes, all adults. Nature forced us to do real things, not the nonsense we have invented for ourselves. We invented the idea of stressing out over a mortgage or car payment - I am sure you can use your imagination to further this general concept. The idea is just to align in a positive way in a more general sense and be ready for the unexpected - hope is just a drop in substitute for when the world disables your optimism and you can lose hope too in a shitty world - no one has the right to take away your hope.

In terms of selves, it would appear children don’t really have a despicable self, they just lack wisdom is all…

…and because I like to get real about life I wrote this > The final reality(a form of mind) is completely artificial(simulated). This is the man-made reality…and before you even get to that point there is a point before this evolution, and as such: This artificial reality is perverse - is unnatural. We evolve many times in our lifetime - there are many things that we would have preferred not to do when viewed with hindsight…

…you can not avoid that which forces you - manmade or natural. Realigning to your real self as opposed to this fantasy we have all created is one of the reality checks we have available if we so choose to use it. So as you put it in your OP - just try and avoid that lower self - these are just simple decisions - not difficult at all. Actually not all of how you stated the lower self is a bad thing. I have adjusted my words here to fit how I perceive the states in this communicative situation to be - a more pure self is a different issue - these are the crude basics - kinda sad come to think of it when reflecting on the world.

obsrvr524 · June 20, 2021, 12:45am

Zookers - someone else noticed James’ work.

I’m a little occupied at the moment so let me respond to this a little at a time -

When I first ran across James’ MIJOT - I was in very much an analytical mind. It didn’t strike me as anything inspiring. I just wanted to know if it was analytically coherent with his AO:Physics - explanations of God and spirit - things like that. And that took some thought.

The idea of it is based on two fundamental concepts. The first part I woke up to was his -

“That which remains in harmony can never perish.”
When he first made that statement he got a lot of flack - by people who rarely think. But it didn’t take much to see that what he said is definitively true. All you have to understand is the definitions of the words and the whole thing became obviously true - I think they call that “tautological”. That was the easy one. The other essential statement was -

“Joy is the inner perception of progress.”
That one wasn’t so easy to confirm - and actually appeared wrong. At that time I had no idea of his Physics of Psychology bit. I don’t think he had even made that thread - actually he wasn’t even on this board. It was on some Buddhist board. So I had to try a little harder with that one. I’ll explain that bit a little later.

encode_decode · June 20, 2021, 12:53am

James had it all together. I am curious though, why was the idea of: “Joy is the inner perception of progress.” - what made this hard for you to confirm?

obsrvr524 · June 20, 2021, 5:24am

The first stumble to get through was the use of the word “Joy”. Most people use many different words to express different levels and nuances of feeling good. A reductionist will always minimize the words to simplify the essential concept. James chose the word “joy” as a scale (from 1-100) to express all of those nuances and variations of feeling good - from mild comfort (1) to mindlessly ecstatic (100). Ok - but what does that have to do with “progress”.

James defined “joy” as the inner perception of progress but also as the sense of realizing a hope.

Again I had to look at his particular intention for that word - “progress”. Again for most people the word “progress” implies that there is a conscious goal being sought and “progress” is advancement toward that goal. But joy is often recognized even when there is no conscious goal in mind. So how was James using the word? That part gets a little harder to piece together. If it is merely a nice pretty day - calm - kids playing down the street - no worries - no thoughts of the evils of the world - it can be felt as a lightly joyous day - so how is that related to progress (assuming you had not been striving for that kind of day as a goal)?

Notice that he said “perception of inner progress”.

I was aware that there is an inner mind (“subconscious” “instinctual” “unconscious” - whatever it’s to be called) and a conscious - outer mind. And the two are linked in such a way that the inner knows more about the outer than the outer knows about the inner - so even conscious goals are perceived by the inner mind. But does the inner mind have “goals” to perceive progress toward? It seems so.

The function of the inner mind is to keep the body alive with inner mechanisms - blood flow - hormone levels - digestion mechanisms - pain relief - and so on. And that is an ongoing - never ending process - the goal of which is to maintain the healthy state. And further there are the alerts that have to be given to the conscious mind - hunger - discomfort - stress - and so on. So for example stress relief is always sought if not already completely resolved (how often does that happen these days). So the inner mind ALWAYS has goals and the “perception of progress” toward those goals is what the inner mind always seeks - balancing the imbalance.

So ok - considering the definitions provided and the rationale of maintaining a body - it makes sense that an inner perception of progress would relate to a positive urging - but is that actually related to feeling good or joy?

James already had defined the perception of hope and threat - PHT - as being what it is that guides all conscious beings (those capable of perception) and the sensation known as joy is the signal from the inner mind to the conscious that something good (something of hope) is being accomplished - perhaps you just got a notice in the mail that you won the lottery.

As I was trying to find exact references for all of this I ran across James’ post below (which I didn’t have at the time) which might explain it better -

James S Saint:

Science has a hard time with definitions, especially in psychology (not exactly a hard science despite their efforts). Philosophers (specifically logicians) form the best and most coherent definitions, not scientists.

All conscious beings are guided by their perception of hope and threat, “PHT”. You probably see that as a claim or assertion. But in reality, it is a declaration of definition:
“Whatever guides all conscious beings is to be called ‘Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT’.”

Now before you argue, consider what the “scientific definition” of “perception of hope” currently is.

Can you think of any? As far as I know, the world of science does not have such a definition. So they certainly cannot tell me that I am wrong. The real question is whether the definition that I am providing is of sufficient usefulness in building an ontology for psychology (to eventually define “joy” in a useful manner). All fields of Science choose their definitions for all things based upon their perception of usefulness.

In an analytical mechanistic science, an entity has hope if it can first perceive (so as to enable remote recognition - “consciousness”), then identify preference (whether rational or not), then intuit or predict a probability that the preference will actualize. The degree of hope is a combination of the degree of preference and the predicted probability. A simple multiplication of intuitively quantized amounts would suffice:

Perception of Hope = Preference * Perceived Probability

And again, this becomes an issue of definition, not merely an equation. Ontologically (in this scenario) it cannot be disputed other than to claim that such would be insufficiently useful and thus something else preferred. And the perception of threat is merely the opposite:

Perception of Threat = Disfavor * Perceived Probability

The concept of joy then becomes the conscious sensation of the experience of that hope being fulfilled or maintained; Probability = 100% (usually via perceived gradual progress toward the hopeful situation). Again, this becomes “scientific definition” if the science community so ordains.

Calculating simple Joy then becomes easy:
Joy = Preference * 1 = Accomplished Preference

Of course the mind/psyche does not function so simplistically as to have merely a single hope or threat being considered. All kinds of body functions, unconscious tones and subtleties, as well as more conscious thoughts and even the effort to form thoughts are all being balanced simultaneously. And every effort is led by a hope or chased by a threat. The final conscious sensation of joy is the summation of the progress of all of those preferences weighed against the progress of the disfavored state.

Thus to get to a truly high state of joy, one must subconsciously be calculating that every effort being pursued through his mind and body are being accomplished. There can be no hope unsatisfied. And that leads to the wisdom of never wanting for what is not already within reach or never vesting hope in what is not clearly to be.

And so now we can equate the more realistic experience of joy as:
Experienced Joy over time = ∑ Accomplished Preferences / time

thinkdr:

It is also necessary to explain why “harmonious relations for as long as possible” is the ONLY way to achieve joy. Why not just (as a solitaire game) solving a logic puzzle, or doing a crossword puzzle being a source of joy for a person? What’s not ethical about that??

Are you referring to this:

James S Saint:

Socially you will discover that in order to obtain the highest possible total IJOT throughout your life, MIJOT, you must maintain a harmony (not a stagnation, but a strategic momentum - a “dance”) with your surroundings and especially any people involved.

If one does not maintain a harmony with ones surroundings, one is constantly threatened and thus not achieving the highest hope that would be attained if one lived in harmony and thus could not experience the highest degree of joy (just as the equations above would indicate).

It is not a violation of ethics to play a solitaire game unless doing so creates a disharmonious situation (such as doing it on the job). In most cases, playing such games aids the inner efforts to harmonize internally (usually relieving anxiety/boredom). Keep in mind that Joy is about both inner and outer efforts that are always operating. Ethics comes into play only concerning the outer social effects of choices. MIJOT is the balance of all of it.

…and btw, MIJOT allows for a much more accurate (life fulfilling) economy and governance to replace money. Money is about power and influence. MIJOT currency is about joy and longevity (which innately includes power and influence but in the right proportions).

So that is why it took me a while.

And I also saw that another way to put it would be -

The ultimate goal of all people is to achieve eternal joy
And that directly relates to the ultimate goal of all Christians - “Heaven” - eternal joy.

So my mind was all wrapped up into just those concepts - still not feeling any inspiration from MIJOT. It was just an analytical exercise that led to some interesting thoughts.

That is until I got online (for the first time - no longer an observer - for years) and ran across Magnus Anderson who questioned a proposed dichotomy between survival and joy.

That is when it got far more interesting to me (still nothing to do with a diary) -

encode_decode · June 20, 2021, 5:45am

obsrvr524

OK, I get the basic gist of what you are saying.

I understand the way James put it well - I was just curious how it translated in your mind.

It is good that you are getting something out of all this man.

.

Leyla · June 20, 2021, 6:53am

James did not specifically explain to me what he means by joy, but Obsrvr has now clarified that in more detail. In a PM to me James wrote:

and

Obsrvr524,
thank you for your responses. I am looking forward to read more about your approach to MIJOT …

promethean75 · June 20, 2021, 11:28am

I started doing this like ten years ago and all I’ve got so far is a small pamphlet.

Really a brilliant and effective thing to do, tho. I tell ya that James S. Saint was sumthin special.

WendyDarling · June 20, 2021, 3:42pm

encode_decode:

Wendy, I like the down-to-earth aspect of your OP but it does not back onto much detail in how there are such things as a higher self and lower self.

WendyDarling:

For Leyla, Obsrvr, or anybody in the know:Did James explain further about what a diary of joy would entail? Like what qualifies? I ask because some types of joy arise from our lower selves, such as laughing when others fall or at Iambiguous’ jackassery.

What are you talking about? Lower selves? Angels and Demons, darker aspects and lighter aspects of our fluid self in action.

I am not sure instinct drives you to laugh at others and I am not sure your unconscious self does that either. Are you talking in terms of a despicable self or something? Our less admirable self, for sure. A lot of comedy subject matter is to laugh when people are embarrassing themselves or harming themselves through clumsiness or other inadequacies. The Three Stooges or more recently the show, Jackass, and other such material has always horrified me.

What do you mean by instinct?

Our intent appears in our actions, choices. But as I age, I find my lower self wasting my time towards progressing, evolving into a perpetually righteous selfless person who not only survives but thrives. So James is right, progress is key.

Whatever the case is, joy is much more than just constant laughter. I agree. Maybe I should have specified that too many people get their joy from a pettiness that they are too embroiled in to see how it keeps them in their lower selves, and it doesn’t amount to other higher types of joy. Criticality of others usually dims our brightness and cheapens our reflection within, but who has the patience to find the good in all idiots? See it’s easier to say that than to actually find the good, easier to be lowly.I would say that laughter acts just as any other malfunction does but that is a complex subject. Before anyone says it, malfunction: a failure to function in a normal or satisfactory manner. I am glad I am not constantly laughing - you know - when driving, walking, and eating along with others - drinking. Things would get messed up very quickly through this type of functioning - if this was a perpetual state. Aspiration is more like the direction that the positive aspects of your nature are geared toward like optimism and hope - based around goals. Intent is no different from intention or purpose - these are things you decide on in terms of short-term and long-term goals. This is just about the inner conflict that we all can never escape - and why would anyone ever truly want to escape this, one would become a fool. I agree, but the more time we indulge in lower self pursuits, such as non-stop judgements of others, we cannot be building ourselves up while we’re wasting time tearing others down. Yes, intent is short for intention in my book.

Being positive all the time sounds good but in practice is nonsense - this type of thinking comes from separating one’s self from nature - and strange as it sounds - forgetting that you were once a child. Children have no problem making meaning for themselves - adults often become chronically imbalanced - yes, all adults. Nature forced us to do real things, not the nonsense we have invented for ourselves. We invented the idea of stressing out over a mortgage or car payment - I am sure you can use your imagination to further this general concept. The idea is just to align in a positive way in a more general sense and be ready for the unexpected - hope is just a drop in substitute for when the world disables your optimism and you can lose hope too in a shitty world - no one has the right to take away your hope.

In terms of selves, it would appear children don’t really have a despicable self, they just lack wisdom is all… I disagree. Children have lower selves to liken with bullying, but as adults we are supposed to overcome the easier path of being mean in our honesty if you get what I’m saying. Measured tact in truth revealing takes vast amounts of precision and conscientiousness. Participating at ILP has taught me that I have huge problems being precise in my meanings. Some scientist/researcher said conscientiousness is one true mark of intelligence or maybe he said it’s the overarching aspect(idk, my memory is shot which screws my conscientiousness)

…and because I like to get real about life I wrote this > The final reality(a form of mind) is completely artificial(simulated). Come again?This is the man-made reality…and before you even get to that point there is a point before this evolution, and as such: This artificial reality is perverse - is unnatural. We evolve many times in our lifetime - there are many things that we would have preferred not to do when viewed with hindsight…

…you can not avoid that which forces you - manmade or natural. Realigning to your real self as opposed to this fantasy we have all created is one of the reality checks we have available if we so choose to use it. So as you put it in your OP - just try and avoid that lower self - these are just simple decisions - not difficult at all. I disagree since our higher self requires more energy from us to sustain it, and our lower self acts in negativity, with ill intent, to go after the lowest hanging fruit, the easier route, more often than most are willing to admit. If our existence is need/suffering, it takes a helluva lot more energy trying to maintain our higher selves. Which is more vulnerable for the action taker, the higher self or the lower self? I say the higher self is more vulnerable since it is our ideal self personified. However, we are safer with less stressful challenges to ourselves if we remain aligned and acting through our lower self. Actually not all of how you stated the lower self is a bad thing. I have adjusted my words here to fit how I perceive the states in this communicative situation to be - a more pure self is a different issue - these are the crude basics - kinda sad come to think of it when reflecting on the world.

Is it my higher self who is always trying to fix people or is it my lower self being comfortable amongst lower type situations? Am I truly being noble and selfless by fixing others who always fight against improving themselves or is this my avoidance of the harder job of working on myself? Is it possible to do both at the same time? I don’t know but I am trying to find out.

I am trying to pause before I react, trying to re-evalute my perspective against the many possible perspectives that exist, trying to be more high minded, more comprehensive. I have had some success.