Can We Avoid/Override Believing Some Thought-Images Are Real ?

[sakoz]

Epictetus said; "It's not the facts that disturb us but our thoughts about them."  (ABC of Emotions).
So the question; "How to avoid/override believing some images are real?" or more specifically; "How to recognize thought-images believed real?" Not possible?
Then we must learn to avoid believing them in the first place if 'believing' is so irreversible after commitment.
If believing thought-images are real is only a habit, then my inquiry is not far-fetched nor a pipe-dream but very relevant.
We are "hard-wired" to react to perceptions and to 'believed thought-images'. We are not hard-wired nor obligated to believe every thought, as is obvious.

If you use language, you also believe thoughts.  How do you protect yourself from believing false/erroneous thoughts? Did anyone ever suggest you need such protection?

[sakoz]

I wrote; "We are 'hard-wired' to react to perceptions and to 'believed thought images.' "  No questions about that statement?
It is true that the same 'circuitry' is used to  react to 'believed thought images' as used to react to perceptions.
We are conditioned to believe some thought images are real; thereby utilizing our involuntary to allow us to experience our beliefs.
Once we are conditioned to 'believe', we in turn use 'believing' to further, hence-forth condition ourselves by believing, etc.
Pavlov could not condition dogs to condition themselves, they did not have language with which to do so.
Some people do not yet recognize what they are doing to themselves when "unwittingly believing".

[sakoz]

Can you subjugate your conditioning?   Are you living/experiencing your conditioning?
Epictetus said; "It's not the facts that disturb us but our thoughts about them." He was absolutly right about conditioning and believing. He talked about the same level at which therapists 'work/intervene'. (I'm suggesting a different level). The placebo effect demonstrates reacting to believed thought per se. (unrecognized as such).
Lets call that level, first order frame of refernce/perspective. Humans can shift to second order frame of reference/perspective. At 2nd level, thoughts are thoughts and never other than thoughts.
Second order, higher perspective is the 'natural' means of intervening and subjugating conditioning of first order lower perspective.
'Beliefs' are the human version of Pavlovs bell. We experience 'believed' thoughts involuntarily. We 'can' shift above from the level of conditioning. If you don't shift/transmigrate to higher level perspective, you are subject to the 'laws' of the level your on/at.
If you understand/realize this, indicates you shifted, if you don't understand this, indicates you did not 'shift'. First level is analogous to caterpiller; second level, to butterfly. Butterfly cannot revert to caterpiller, but we 'can' shift back and forth. A example is 'moods', sometimes your in a good mood, sometimes in a bad mood.
If you can't shift, you can still benefit by trusting that a higher level exists in you from where you recognize you can override/sub jugate your conditioning. ( if you sincerely believe).
Some people call that higher perspective 'angel or spirit'; given the religious tradition, people interpret in terms of their current beliefs. There's nothing supernatural about the higher levels I refer to.*
( Does anyone have an inkling that my flow of ideas is not coming from my conditioned learnings, memory? Trust your higher level perspective or meta-perspective, even if you prefer to call it your angel.)
* opps, forgot to mention, we interpret too soon and too fast because people are uncomfortable in a "state of unknowing", that's why they interpret so fast, in safe situations that is.

[S. Earl Martin]

So Sakoz, I was watching a show on TV the other day were counslers and psychologists were talking about forgiveness and reconciliation. One of them mentioned a technic that I believe applies to the line of thought you have been refering to. It is called reframing.

The example was this. Many people when they are in a relationship have an unrealistic veiw of the releationship. It is either good or bad. When it is good they ignore any bad habits or other problems dealing with the other person or persons. When it is bad they forget any good habits or traights and only focus on the bad. This leads to divorce and breakdown of relationships. If they reframed the experience and dealt with the bad habits etc. while they were occuring? The releationship could have been dealt with more openly and possibly saved. Avoiding the emotional suffering etc. They pushed the bad into their subconscious until it was to great to ignore.

You might want to check out this technic and see for yourself how it applies. Earl

[sakoz]

S. Earl Martin;  Thanks, reframing is a fine 'tool/method'. So is reconditioning. I believe reframing and reconditioning  are both used on the same level. Both are 'remedial'. Both 'produce' favourable results (on the level used). That may be enough in and of themselves.
I'm pointing to a higher level from the level where those are applied.
The stage coach worked fine; it was not improved by making it twice the size and twice as many horses to pull it, no, there was a shift in means of transportation to automoblie/truck, etc.

[sakoz]

S. Earl Martin;   consider this.
All creatures react to perceptions automatically, spontaneously; that maneuver is part of "The Law Of Survival".  (you agree?)
For humans, 'believing' some images are real, also engages the same automatic, spontaneous  organ/mechanism (amygdala?)
This is demonstrated by babies and toddlers. A toddler can be crying and if it is distracted to perceive something else, the crying stops immediately because of the new perception being attended to. You decide if reframing works the same way, providing a new perception to be reacted to. Reconditioning is a new response to a prior cue, cues are perceived in order to be reacted to.
In the case of the toddler, no extraneous learning/training was required to "shift" attention/perspective to get the same results.