Making Reality Subconscious (assumes you read my first post)

[hard science]

Given two senses of reality,

[sakoz]

hard science: I can't find where you said you "transcended thinking" about 30 years ago. Your posts are written from that 'perspective'? It seems to me, maybe the readers should be at that perspective too, in order to understand you.  Would,you write about "transcending thoughts"? From that perspective, one can change one's psychological life, etc.

[sakoz]

Thank you: I'm slowly understanding more, "dummy it down" for us 'average folks'. It seems to me that Mits and Wits (Man in the street & Woman in the stree). Need an understanding of the practical application in their own life before  the broader aspects of your work.
We avoid touching hot stoves because we know it will hurt. But we don't avoid believing false thoughts that cause emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, mistakes, stress, etc.
I refuse to suffer my believed thoughts;( the way to do that is not to believe they are real). I 'catch myself' more often than not. Compared to when all "subliminally believed thoughts" had the"right-of-way".

[SWM]

@Hard Science have you found much science that supports your ideas?

[sakoz]

hard science: I don't mean to "atomize" your post by picking out one 'piece', but the sentence I choose pertains to my work, or attempt to explain. ( I'll give the rest of your post more thought).
"You want to know how you are making the other angry." That statement is as colloquial as; "You make me angry."  Both imply the premise that all emotions are externally caused.
( Even animals only react to their perception of facts, example scarecrows, cardboard hawks, etc.) My interest is in  recognizing "believed thought-images" that are only 'counterfeit perceptions', but are reacted to nonetheless because not recognized for what they are.

( Both quotes I used are based on the 'self-deception' that our perceptions (believed thoughts) are real.) (Even the non-verbal perceptions made via eyes are questionable, so those perceptions made via language is more 'suspect'.)
We don't see with our eyes we perceive with our brain. It's more obvious with hearing, we don't hear with our ears, we hear with/in our brain. Sound waves go in our ears and "beat" the drums, that reverberate 'inside'. Our perceptions are 'behind' our eyeballs, that's so counter to what we believe, I won't even persue it. Beliefs do not yield or rather the part of our nervous system that reacts to perceptions is unyielding, it's 'hard-wired', the result of eons of evolution. Our recourse is to stop believing, then there's no reaction, etc. Because not every thought is believed, indicates believing is "optional". When we regulate "believing", we indirectly regulate our involuntary reactions, which a very 'cool' arrangement or a 'gift' of evolution to us. But we're still trying 'to get the hang of it'.

[sakoz]

The most fundamental Principle (perception) we depend on for experiencing life, can be , all too often, deceptive. That can be disconcerting, even shocking.
It's easy to mistake perceptions for facts; that's why we have through cross examinations in our courts of law. It's a "malady" of epidemc  magnitude, yet virtually unrecognized and so not widely addressed yet. I've been trying for eleven months to convey that "self-deception" to the readers here; but as you (hard science) wrote "...has to be experienced personally to be discovered."
So, "transcending thought" is the way/means to experience it for oneself. That realization is our version of having a 'Aladdin Magic Lamp'. When we "tailor" perceptions on purpose, our involuntary 'genie' reacts to them; our wish (in the form of perceptions) is it's command.
So instead of 'telling' readers what they will see from that higher perspective, how can we help them "shift" there so they see for themselves?

[sakoz]

hard science; I don't understand much/most of what you wrote. Read below to see if we're "on the same page', but coming from different directions.
You wrote:"Take a feeling, fear. Your walking in the wood at dark and fear shows up. Fear, as thought has it, means you have an irrational primordial reaction to the fact that it's a bit wild there, or you have seen too many stories of haunted forests."
The word OR separates two beliefs about the cause of cueing emotions(fear in your example).
Epictetus told us about the second belief. He said; "It's not the facts that disturb us but our thoughts about them." He warned us about the first (false) belief that facts cause emotions. The assumption of ;"it's a bit wild in there" is the belief reacted to; so whether we recognize them or not, it's belief (as perceptions) we react to; not directly to facts,( that part of the woods could be tempoarily deserted at the time).
I will demonstrate that even animals react to their perceptions, instead of to the facts. My first example is the scarecrow; a scarecrow is a effigy, harmless, but the crows react to their  perception of "danger". My second example is the experiment with newly hatching ducklings. As the eggs were cracking so the ducklings could emerge; the mother duck was already removed. The experimenters hid behind a curtain. The first thing the ducklings saw was a cardboard silhouette suspended on a fine wire. As it was pulled in one direction it was perceived by the ducklings as a adult duck in flight, and they streched their necks up as if expecting food. When the silhouette was pulled back, without being turned around, the cardboard was perceived by the ducklings as a adult hawk in flight, and they crouched/cowered in fear, clearly a reaction to their perception and not to harmless cardboard cutout. The human version of duckling experiment is the placebo effect. Every person who goes for therapy , or buys a self-help book, or comes here for advice, mistakenly believe some thought-image is real and so react to what they believe/perceive.