From Perception Back To Thought (unmorph)

[sakoz]

  The consensus is that perceptions are a 'given', by way of or from environment; but it works both ways. Example; "I thought the gun was empty."
At the moment of pulling the trigger the thought functioned as perception, but because it was false, it reverted back (unmorphed) to thought.
During a 'heated' argument, did you ever ever hear; "Excuse me, but I'm reacting to my thought instead of to yours?" ( Like in reacting to thought in gun example).
When you recognize reacting to your own thought, do you continue to do so? (in the same context?)

Perceptions are implicitly believed;  some perceptions 'are' beliefs. Not only do we believe what we see, we see what we believe. (lol)

[sakoz]

You  not 'buying' what I'm 'selling'(promoting)? What I'm promoting is ALREADY in you; realize and access what's already in you. You experienced AHAs?*; I'm pointing to WHERE they come from.
Do you accept the tenet that;" we react to our own thoughts"? (In order to react to our own thoughts, they have to be made to look like perceptions of/from the environment).
"Unwittingly Believing" is the means of perpetrating that  deceptive 'ruse'. Do you also accept the tenet that ;"we think thoughts"? (whether volitionally or non-volitionally).
If our brain 'converts/transforms' "energy" into 'thoughts', (per E=mc2) then we have access to infinite energy.
Why do we spend 'more' time recycling old, used  thoughts from memory, instead of creating/producing new, original thoughts? We need both kinds of thought; we're coming up short of original thoughts.

* proving aha s accessible to everyone.

Why are 'beliefs' problematic? Because once formed,  they seem to be as 'hard-wired' as instincts. Both seem compelling and irrevocable, but isn't the function of thought to make us flexible, resilient, that is not possible with instincts?

[sakoz]

Do you trust your brain? Even though it sometimes 'produces' some false/unreliable thoughts?
Are we passive recipients of thoughts?
How are original thoughts determined at inception?
Can we influence the quality of original thoughts at inception?
Do these questions have merit?

[S. Earl Martin]

Original thoughts are produced by a number of factors. Perceptions, past experience, what we believe to be true or false. Our emotional state. Influence by our enviornment or other people. If we are on any mind altering or mood altering substances. Intellect. Education. Possibly even the moon phase or the alienment of the planets? All these factors are impossible to measure or predict. We only have so much control or influence on our thought process. We are imperfect beings and sometimes we make mistakes. Sometimes we just don't know. Or we react on instinct. That is a survival skill. We have no choice but to trust our brain. Even though we are wrong sometimes. Or we are fooled sometimes. Either by ourselves or others. We live in an imperfect world and random events occur. We can't know everything or control everything. I think you are spinning your wheels here. You have identified a problem, but have not deduced a solution. I have given this a great deal of thought and have run this thru the D-Text to see if I could use the formulas to find a solution? I couldn't. Unless you can find one I think you are trying to find something that isn't there?

[sakoz]

S. Earl Martin: I was about to add more info but I see your reply and will comment first. You think I'm "spinning my wheels". (Quaint;lol) "I think you are trying to find something that isn't there."
Before you experience a "aha insight", would you say it isn't there? It's there when it's there, not before. ( To me; "insight" is original, not a synthesis.)

Does thinking correlate with experience? Sometimes we don't see it; some have never seen it (yet).
"I thought the gun was empty" and placebo effect are only two 'generic' examples of a very common practice of REACTING TO OUR OWN BELIEVED THOUGHTS. How is that more efficious than reacting to facts? Animals  react to facts but they don't have technology etc. So there is a 'downside' to using language. Psychology/Therapy address the downside of language use.
"Thought" is the common denominator of both our happiness and unhappiness; of success and failure; mental health and mental illness. How well do we understand "believing thoughts"? The role of thought in our experience of living?
Meditaters don't stop thinking, they stop reacting to them in order to observe them. We need to do that "on the fly" rather than being immobilized. We can't live our lives while cloistered in meditation. We need the equanimity, serenity of meditation WHILE GOING ABOUT OUR DAILY LIVING.
( Any detractors or critics want to disparage that idea?)

[S. Earl Martin]

You still are not listening. I have given you a number of examples where this information could be applied, but you just keep going on with the same questions. I have said that the info has merit, but because of human limitations we can only influence it so much. Unless you can show me some way to apply this information you are spinning your wheels.

Say I had fore knowledge that a building was going to collapse. That would be useful information only if I had a way of using it. If I had no way of applying it no matter how true it was it would be useless. We are at the same point here. You keep going on and on about how true you information is, but have no way of applying it. I and others have acknowledged that the information is true, but how can it be used to a productive purpose? What is it you want?

[sakoz]

Earl; What do I want? I want to 'give'(share), not 'receive'. (I posted 'This What You Looking For'. I intended it for you, but it would be 'buried' here.)
I invite you to 'shift perspective' to observer mode instead of reactor mode, till you finish reading my whole post.
You wrote, "We have no choice but to trust our brain. Even though we are  sometimes wrong." ( Is it 'we',or our brain that's sometimes wrong?) "trust our brain" you say?
To what extent? Without quaification, Carte blanche? You admit sometimes 'it'  produces false thoughts, making 'us wrong' when we react to them. So is immutable trust warranted?
Knowing our brain "serves" both true and false thoughts with equal facility; what option do we have? How about learning  to recognize/differentiate the two kinds of thoughts, true and false.?
True thoughts have the effect of happiness, success. mental health; false thoughts have the effect of unhapiness, failure, mental ilness. How can we choose which ones to react to?
By 'shifting to a higher level perspective/understanding" from where we can 'see'.
I stressed REACTING TO OUR OWN BELIEVED THOUGHTS;  that is empowering WHEN the thoughts are true, but a liability WHEN the thoughts are false.
"believe first, find out if thought true or false later" is as dysfunctional as "shoot first, ask questions later".
Earl, I want for you, especially after your sincere efforts to understand, to recognize the role of thoughts in causing experience; you don't have to be aware of the specific thought to know that "thought' is the 'bottom line'  or building blocks of experience as atoms are the building blocks of 'matter'.
( I sincerely hope you have AHA insight, without that it will seem to you that I'm "spinning my wheels"; no one else is coming forward to say they experienced the insight I allude to, is it that 'hard' to 'get'?)
The 'insight' I refer to is 'spontaneous';you can't "be spontaneous". You can 'sweat blood' trying to 'be spontaneous' by effort and you can't demand insight to occur, (sorry about that).

[S. Earl Martin]

Dude! I have told you several times that thought in general is the basis of our cognitive process. What do you want a parade or the nobel prize? What you are saying is just common sense. It is not some big revelation unless you can find some solution to the problem. I have given you several avenues to the best solutions I know of and you just ignored them. You are stuck on just pointing out the problem exists. There is no aha here because there is no element of suprise. What you keep saying over and over is not some big cosmic mystrey. As I have stated we are imperfect beings and we can only preceive so much. We operate on instinct still. Instinct is largley controlled by emotions and perceptions. 

[sakoz]

Earl: What I'm saying is common sense. "It's not some big revelation unless you can find some solution to the problem." O.K. you admit there's a 'problem'.
Would you restate the 'problem' in your own terms?  I want to make sure we're in agreement at least to that extent.
 ( I would like to see a cogent, concise statement of the 'problem' other than by me.)

[S. Earl Martin]

Okay I will try. But 2 things. 1. I had an infusion yesterday and it effects my ability to think clearly. 2. this is your deal and I have only so much understanding of what you are saying. 

In human interaction errors occur due to preconceptions and learned or believed biasises. These errors result in human suffering and emotional discomfort. Many of these preconceptions and beliefs occur on a subconscious level and may occur without any knowledge or at least limited knowledge of the person experiencing them. Different methodologies can be used to try and overcome these. Which include meditation, education, for thought, counseling, etc. At present only limited success to correct this problem has been achieved due to human imperfection.

That is the best I can do. If I think about it somemore I may be able to encompass more of what you have said. Right now I feel like crap and am going to go lay down. Peace! 

[sakoz]

S. Earl Martin; Thank you; I'm sure most readers agree with your restatement as do I. I will 'think' about what to post next.
Hope you feel better soon.

[SWM]

wishing you well Earl.

[sakoz]

S. Earl Martin; You added your conclusion to the otherewise accurate summary of what you understand of what I've been posting. Your belief that humans are imperfect seems to 'blend' in with your summary. Do I approve of your addition? Let's look at your belief. Does it indicate whether the 'imperfections' are structural or functional?
" In human interaction errors occur due to preconceptions and learned or believed biasises." "At present only limited success to correct this problem has been achieved due to human imperfection."  The belief of 'human imperfection' is one of the beliefs you mention that cause errors. Your last sentence goes 'full circle' back to your first sentence, ( Ouroborus ).
The solutions require 'extrication', 'leaving the field' to 'shift to a higher order frame of reference'. To paraphrase Einstein "....we cannot solve the problems we create at the same level at which we create them." (To some readers this  may seem  ludicrous to say we create problems, especially emotional ones when they 'hurt' so much.)

"errors occur due to preconceptions, beliefs, bias". These are 'part' of and 'transmitted' language. Is the language 'imperfect' or the 'users'?
'belief'  as noun;  'believing' as verb.

[S. Earl Martin]

Regardless of the nature or origin of human imperfection. Good luck trying to eradicate it. We can make some progress in controlling it or preventing it thru the methodology I decribed. You keep asking questions, but you expect me to find your solutions for you. You make vague statements that contain no solutions. Just obscure references. I am tired of playing your game. If you know so much tell me how this problem can be resolved. The root cause of the problem as I see it is human imperfections. If you have a problem with my summery rewrite it so it reflects your point more accurately.

[sakoz]

S.Earl Martin; Just before I came to this site just now, I saw, "OneJourneyBook.com", as near as I can tell from his short video, he points to where I 'point', check it out.( I just ordered the book to see if he too points there, and if he explains it better than I tried).

I agreed how 'very well' you restated/summerized my views. I pointed out that you added your belief (your last four words,"due to human imperfection") Without those 4 words, I'm proud how well you summerized, I wish I had said it that,way.  Is your overreaction (in your last reply) "due to your human imperfection"? I agree with you , it's futile to continue if your "imperfections" get in the way.
Einstein said',  "....we cannot solve the problems we create at the same level at which we create them." Do you understand him any better than you understood me?
My final words to you are to notice how "seamlessly" your added belief to your summary seems to fit and belong . Notice what's yours and what's in/from the environment, that lack of thought-recognition is the main part of the "problem". It occurs over and over again in most contexts undetected.
( You added your belief ;unrecognized; exactly like everyone 'adds' their belief of "square" when trying to solve the Nine-Dot puzzle; it occurs automatically, till you learn how to detect 'adding'.)
           

[S. Earl Martin]

I still am not sure where you are pointing? That is part of my frustration. You criticize my definition I think. But you don't offer an alternetive that is supposed to be more accurate. It is really hard for me to determine what you are talking about. That is why I am asking you to give definitive statements. Not vauge references.

Further humans are imperfect. It is not just my belief. It is a fact. To think otherwise is foolishness. Example: I had a coworker at the end of the year tell me that he made only 2 mistakes all year. I said " you mean 2 mistakes you regret or 2 mistakes total?" He said no only 2 mistakes at all. I laughed and told him I could name at least 5 he made while I was with him. He told me no way. So I did. He blamed everything and everyone else saying they weren't his mistakes. By this time several other people who had been listening joined the conversation. They pointed out other mistakes he made. Again he defended himself blameing other people and cirumstances. So all the next year when ever he made a mistake people would point it out.
We are all imperfect beings. We can't know everything or do everything. That is a fact.

You still haven't told me what the point of all this long drawn out process is? What do you hope to accomplish? What is your goal?

[sakoz]

Earl; I did not criticize your definition, it 'fits' but it is yours not mine. You added it to your summary of my view. I just pointed out the obvious. We all do it but often don't recognize doing it, sometimes it's crucial we recognize doing it in 'important' contexts. ( I was not sure you would reply anymore so I was about to post the following as a new topic.)
" A Dilemma Analogous To Insomnia"
Einstein said "....we cannot solve the problems we create at the same level at which we create them." He did not say (as far as I know) HOW to 'get to' the meta-level.
A insomniac wants to go from awake to sleep. We want to go from "first order frame of reference" to " second order frame of reference". ( Like astronauts view of earth).
When asleep, we don't know about the awake state. When in/at first order frame of refernce, the second is just as 'invisible'. But we know ABOUT the second level while still in the first level; but that is not the same as being in/at the meta-level. We all 'occasionally visit' that level, but we don't have a methodology to 'shift' there. So far it appears to occur serendipitously; that is not dependable if it does not occur when we want.
Anyone who seeks therapy arrives for appointment in/at first order level (indicated by Einstein). Those of you who are therapists have witnessed AHA insights truly healing, solutions from the meta-level.  Some people 'live' at that second level, maintainig the two levels in balance. But first let's focus on getting there first as 'visitors' and later as 'tenants'.
When we 'believe' a thought is real, we lose perspective that it's only a thought, in the moment. But from second level we,see the first level the way astronauts saw the earth.
I'm talking about the Ultimate Therapy, HEALING FROM WITHIN ,  we're born with psychological healing innate but it gets 'overridden' by conditioning, etc. all the things your familar with at the first level.

[sakoz]

Earl; I hope I'm not 'nit-picking' or 'splitting hairs' or 'chasing red herrings'; but;
"Further humans ARE imperfect. (my emphasis) It is not just my belief. It is a fact". (evaluation/judgement maybe?)
Your example of coworker; I get. His 'ego'/self-concept' has a agenda to look a certain way,( at least in his eyes.)
Here's my example; Suppose you see a three legged dog. Your generic/generalization/schema is 'dogs have four legs'; this one has three therefore it's imperfect; meanwhile the dog ia adapting very well. The three legged dog does not match your expectation. I've seen on T.V. a young wrestler born without legs, doing very well winning matches. Is he 'imperfect' or 'handicapped'?
If he BELIEVES  he is both, would he wrestle? BEWARE what you BELIEVE . What we do with language is astonishing ( seen from meta-level perspective, but not seen from lower level.)

[S. Earl Martin]

Your definition of imperfect is different than mine. I have friends that are blind or deaf. I don't consider them imperfect because of the way they are made. We all are imperfect. If you are perfect tell me what will happen next? Not just one thing, but everything. You can't. We have limits. We make mistakes. We can only comprehend so much information. Our lack of knowledge keeps us from being perfect.
I have acknowledgeed that preconceptions and prejudices distort our view of the world. What we believe or others believe can have dire consequences. Think of all the people who have been imprisioned or killed because someone thought they did something. And yes the pen is mighter than the sword.

A three legged dog walks into a bar and says. I am lookin fo the man that shot my paw. Note: Paw is slang for father as well as a word for a dogs leg. 

[sakoz]

Your right my definition of 'imperfect' is different from yours. Your definition of 'perfect' is so high there's only one possible candidate, referred to as GOD.
 I wish in had not written #17; because of it you bypassed #16, that finally points to my goal of sharing that info. I thought we could "work" from there. Such is the 'merry-go-round' of language use, or rather "hamster-wheel".

[S. Earl Martin]

I didn't ignore #16. I have covered that information over and over. It was pointless to respond. I am taking medication that makes it difficult to be patient and to think abstractly. It is difficult enough to understand your logic anyway. I am not being rude I just don't see any way this can be resolved. Sorry!

[sakoz]

If you covered the informatin in my #16 over and over; then I don't see any way to resolution either; sorry.