on fear

[xynthal]

My attempt to Understand Fear

A system is the grouping of all PROCESS within the defined system boundary.  It can be proven that there can exist NoPROCESS functioning in isolation of any and all other PROCESS.
If we define our system boundary as those PROCESS REL Earth, then there exists a single PROCESS that controls the system.  This CONTROL PROCESS is not the sum of contained PROCESS but is controlled by the change induced by all PROCESS.
   
   Define: PROCESS: P : Δ(Potential → Existent)

This is to say that a PROCESS, P, is the change from a potential state to an existent state.

All living things can be proven to be perceptive.  Even single cells that feed on sunlight find a way to move to the most light.

It is beyond the scope of this post, but it can be proven that at least all perceptive things are driven by the want of NoHARM.

Fear, while evolutionarily beneficial at times, is PERCEIVED as HARM.

So those PROCESS of Earth are mostly changed by PERCEPTIVE Entities.  PERCEPTIVE Entities WANT NOHARM.

If we can know that all living cells PERCEIVE, then the change induced by the total number of PERCEPTION PROCESS would greatly outweigh any and all other PROCESS of system Earth.

Therefore, that which controls that CONTROL PROCESS of system Earth is that which is induced into the CONTROL PROCESS.

We can know that since all PERCEPTIVE Entities WANT NOHARM, the change to be induced into the CONTROL PROCESS is the same for all PERCPTIVE PROCESS.

Therefore, we can know that in system Earth, that which controls HARM, controls the CONTROL PROCESS.

I would say that the greatest fear experience by Humans on a day-to-day basis would be the fear of imprisonment. 

I read a paper that touched on this, I would like to paraphrase the original author.

"If, in a system, the majority of fear is disposed of, those individuals responsible for inducing fear will necessarily experience induced fear to that individual that increases in proportion to the fear that is disposed and gain fear as those thought controlled are observed without fear and paranoia."-xyn   

[rethinkPERFECT]

I am very interested in this subject and I think you have made some interesting points although a lot has gone over my head.

Maybe if I tell you my concept we could compare ideas.
This comes from my blog RethinkPerfect.com

I believe that we live by two fears:

1. Fear of losing the OTHER
2 Fear of losing the SELF

The fear of losing the OTHER is the fear of losing what we have gained
to date, fear of losing what we have. (EXISTENT as you say)

The fear of losing the SELF is the fear of losing our own time and effort
that we would need to invest for the future. (POTENTIAL as you say)

I am not sure if either fear is greater. These two fears seem to work in tandum
and are the drivers for my two diagrams below. This has taken me 26 years to develop
so far.

From this I have built a diagram that explains how relationships succeed and fail.
An Ideal Relationship without Resentment


A Compromised Relationship with Resentment

[sakoz]

xynthal; "All living things can be proven to be perceptive." I say  the same thing, thus;"All creatures are involuntarily reactive to perceptions".
You wrote; "Fear, while evolutionarily benefical, is perceived as harm".  We have a,b,c.  a, something feared, fear represented by b and c, the perception of b. That is, we perceive the fear we are experiencing. The fear per se is not harm but rather a signal that harm is present/imminent. ( fear is a signal to mobilize or mobilization is in progress.)
My 'subset' of your post, ( some of which is 'over my head too) is when fear is a reaction to "believed-thought-images as if real, even in safe enviroments. I didn't see if you dealt with that in your post. That's the aspect I'm most interested in; and a way to avoid/inhibit such 'needless' self-induced fear. So much emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, mistakes, stress, etc. are the result of not recognizing when our reaction is to 'mere' images in our head. We carry our "infliction" with us, we can be fearful in the safest environments.(lol).
I think of 'fear' as non-verbal version of assumption; based on the fact that, deer or rabbits are "spooked" by a noise from behind a bush, they can't see what's there, we do the same with believed thought images; at least the animals react to a real noise, with the 'possibilty' that there 'might' be a predator, whereas there's no chance of our images morphing.

[sakoz]

rethinkPERFECT: You believe we live by two fears; 1. losing OTHER and 2.losing SELF. No mention of the most prevalent and active? Fear reaction to 'believed-thought-images. etc.

Some readers claim they don't understand me. (S. Earl Martin & SWM to mention 2).  We all heard of smokers who know smoking is harmful. Their wives get on their case, friends, doctors, even strangers,etc. Then one day they say;"I'm going to stop smoking, it's bad for my health, costly, smelly clothes, etc". They repeat what they heard over and over; so what's different now that they say it? They realize,insight,aha, recognition via their direct experience.etc. Up until then they smoked. I believe my repetition falls on deaf ears till they 'realize' it themselves. In the case of Pavlovs dogs, they could not be told the sound of a bell is not food, ironically, even though I said  their reacting to believed thought images, they could not recognize doing so while doing so.
I heard (true or false?) that bull frogs croaked so loud they had protection from going deaf from their own sound. Some animals have a membrane they can use in dust to protect their eyes. It seems, like the smokers, some readers-have myopia that prevents them from understanding others till they themselves experience 'insight..

Desmond; You believe we live by two fears. 1. Fear of losing OTHER. 2. Fear of losing SELF.  We torture ourselves with them (as I see it). They are both possibilities. But untill they occur, we suffer needlessly by thinking about the possibility. Both are like the anxiety we feel when thinking about going to the dentist for a root canal. ( What's that about dying a thousand times?)
When we think/visualize/believe; our ANS (amygdala) reacts to our images as if real, current perceptions.

[rethinkPERFECT]

Thanks for the feedback Sakoz and I agree with your proposition of this fear also.

The two fears I am referring to are in a different context I think.
They can be what I call resonable fears of loss and the price of gain. I think they can be very useful to create debate internally and externally, with the key to aim to stay in the green zone in my diagrams.
The fear you suggest seems to me to be the fear of false loss and false price of gain, a false fear,
or maybe a fear of a false fear. Or even a fear of a false fear of a false fear of a fear even, and so on.

I think I have taken this into account in my thesis (book outline so far) which I refer to a feedback loop
that makes us loopy. How we go about short circuitting such an unreasonable fear is the real key here to be addressed. But I will make use of your point and include your suggestion more clearly, now that you bring it up.

Being afraid to stand in the middle of the road, to me, is a valid fear even if there are no cars coming at the time. Or fear that the person we are courting for a long term commitment may not be suitable, is also valid and useful as a fear. It is when we loop them over and over with little or no grounds that we then have real problems as you suggest.

So How do I suggest to short circuit the feedback fear or believed-thought-images?
I guess this is also linked to what you suggested about friends offering smokers a solution.
That by getting an agreement with someone else, we can ratchet ourselves out of any delima that our feedback loopy fear can entrench us in. Conversations and the agreements we gain from them are what can get us out of this problem. But to have the "real" conversations that we need to break us out of this loop, I think, we need a real and agreed framework to share such valuable and controversial information, so that the delivery is as good as the content. And also another framework to cope when the delivery is not up to the first framework.

So in summary, I think we are now talking about 3 fears, two potentally resonable ones and the third
fear that allows us to measure the validity of other two. This, to me, proves why we need each other to stay sane and why I always try to say thanks for feedback, even if I do not agree with it.

Your feedback much appreciated.

[sakoz]

xynthal; I would like to see you rewrite your post , "on fear" in street language for laymen, or better yet, for a class of 8th graders. I liked what I understood, so I would like to understand more of it.

rethinkPERFECT; about your diagrams; I looked closely, the animated part of top diagram stays in green zone, the bottom one goes into red zones. The red zone on left depicts person As red, the red on right, person Bs red zone. A example of what they are doing(omit the gestulating), what they are saying/thinking would be helpful, to me. Are examples in your e-book?
"The two fears I am referring to are in a different context I think."  To me, all experienced fear(emotions) are in the context of bodies.
1."How we go about short circuiting such an unreasonable fear is the real key here to be addressed."
2."So how do i suggest to short circuit the feedback fear or believed-thought-images?"
3."And another framework to cope when the delivery is not up to the first framework."
Fear(emotions) exist at 1st order frame work. Emotions do not exit at/in 2nd order framework; because it'a a 'conceptual frame'. It appears we're using the 'frames' in two different ways.
I get the impression your using frames 'sequentially', that is horizontally on the same level. I'm using them 'verically'. Maybe I ought to call them "levels of understanding"? Higher levels of understandings are 'perspectives' 'views'. A prime example is a aha/insight/realization/understanding; like the smoker had that changed his behavior thereafter.
( A personal example; as a child I heard parables of Jesus, many times, so I,understood them, right? Years later, as a adult, I experienced a aha/insight, a parable FIT my situation exactly, I experienced a new level of understanding of what I already knew. I'm certain there 'are' levels of understanding.)

[rethinkPERFECT]

Thanks for the questions. The diagrams need explaining obviously (not so obvious to me though). I have modified the 2 diagrams
above to hopefully make them clearer.
Also here is some detail of the square which represents two people working partly with and partly against each other in
vectors or forces.

1. The square is an ideal relationship with the fullest area in use.

2. The parallellagram is a compromised relationship, area is reduced, that occurs at times
in diagram 2 when the two people enter into the resentment or RED area.

One thing to notice is that the verticle vector of square 1 and parallelagram 2.
In 1 the verticle vector is greater than the vector of the individual
In 2 the verticle is less than the vector of the individual.
In other words better to stay single than venture into the position of number 2 relationship.

One more thing is that these people in the struggle to form agreements swing across the central line
of a perfectly balanced relatoinship. They actually touch perfection, I believe, even if it is for a nano second.
Imagine that, it is a nice thought. Obviously the shorter the oscellation in the relationship the more times
one can cross the point of perfection.

Keeping the relationship out of resentment is obviously the goal

How we do this, I think, is by using agreed rules of engagement.
Here is a framework that I have prepared earlier:


ie 6A Framework
Speak with Adjustable, Accountable and Acceptable Language
Listen and Respond with Appreciate, Acknowledge and Apology (in defence)
if the first 3As are not achieved.

It is this "real" conversation, properly framed, that can be so helpful to keep us in the green zone.
This process, however is going to put a lot of professional therapists out of a job as we can
get this type of "real" feedback from friends, colleagues and lovers that have agreed to use such a framework.

Finally, without agreed rules of engagement (and I tend to like mine), then I believe that relationships will end up in the
red zone far more than is necessary or healthy for a relationship and I think explains why so many relationships are failing.
Simply no agreed to rules of engagement of any near quality as I am proposing.

[sakoz]

Hummm? Very interesting. How would you use it at a party, or any gathering, if only you know this? (This reveals my lack of understanding?)

Referring to a prior reply of yours about 'certainty'.  I'm certain certainty is relative, depending on context.
Think of a image; ;lets say of a snake. If I said that that image is a real snake; you might say; " Are you nutz?" "Let me notify your next of kin." So it's a mistake to believe and react to images as if real.
You don't believe your image of snake is real, (in this context) yet in another context you do. Classic example; You look at a coiled piece of rope but see a snake;( that is, your image of a snake) you react to your image with the same certainty as if there was a 'real' snake present. There's nothing tentative about your involuntary/conditioned reaction.

In reference to your 'red' zones: Resentment is emotional reaction, and can be dealt with as any other emotion.
Unreasonable Certainty: is a result of any "Believed" thought; especially if the thought believed is false to facts.
Placebo Effect is the result of believing a false thought; albeit the effect can be beneficial; nonetheless 'believing a false thought' is a 'mistake'.

[rethinkPERFECT]

Regarding certainty, I am resonably certain of my uncertainty, I think!
or in other words,
"I think, therefore I am" Descartes
"I think, therefore I am, I think!" Des sherlock

Regards party talk or at a gathering.
Well as the rules of engagement are the foundation of a relationship, in my view, I am now keen to let people know about them at the beginning of a conversation and see if I can get an agreement on their use in principle.
The approach mostly goes over people's head. The head that it doesn't go over is the head that I am interested in talking to further
and hopefully they are interested in talking to me. It sort of acts as a filter for both of us.

Getting upfront agreements is the ultimate in "complaining responsibly", I reckon, and part of my mating cycle which I am still on, being single.

Now, I may end up single for the rest of my life by this approach but at least I get to be the "me" I want to be
and it is quite exciting testing it out. By this approach, it has allowed me to continue to modify my model as I am still doing
here, writing this posting.

I thnk that is the key, to enjoy ones approach to life, not hide our light, so to speak, and let every thing take care of itself.

Rethink Perfect is only my philosophy as detailed which my brother and I are the only agreeing participants.
So please don't try this at home as it has a tendancy to disrupt relationships as we know them, which might or might not be
a good thing depending on ones perspective.

But trying to retrofit, rules of engagement, after a relationship has been formed,
can have disasterous consequences, I believe. It is a bit like trying to add a foundation after some of
the house has been built.

Trying to add rules of engagement after a relationship is in progress is more about imposing rules
on the other and expecting compliance. A sort of "bait and switch" process.
And failure to get the compliance results in resentment on both sides
and it is all down hill from then on, I reckon. Personally it is something I have been trying to avoid.
And I do believe my fears are valid with no relationship bar one that I have ever admired and the
statistics of relationship break down having a terrible emotional and financial impact on western societies.

[sakoz]

I define 'unreasonable certainty' as:" Unwittingly believing a false thought and being as certain about it as one is certain about ones existence and gravity."

[rethinkPERFECT]

Interesting... I define "unreasonable certainty" as
"when one carries resentment for a certain thing or person, believing it or they have caused it".

How do you define "reasonable certainty" and "reasonable uncertainty"?

[sakoz]

resentment is an emotion.  "carried"? only as long as thought believed keeps 'provoking' that emotion, the quality of the thought believed determines the quality of the emotion experienced.
"reasonable certainty"-  gravity, solar eclipses. scientific method test of theories, specific thoughts,
"resonable uncertainty"- any untested/unverified (by scientific method) theory or specific thought. Reasonable uncertainty is a "cousin" of 'tentative'

xynthal wrote "....it can be proven that at least all perceptive things are driven by the want of NoHarm."  "want " as an expectation? Not likely. In a safe environment animals are only concerned about harm if it's present or imminent, otherwise it's non-existent for them, as far as I know.  "all perceptive things" are vastly different if some of those "things" are capable of-and have language.
Animals perceive environment,- not having language, they can't "counterfeit" perceptions by 'believing some images are real'. Humans can react fearfully in safe environment by reacting to believed thought images.

[rethinkPERFECT]

Can you define absolute certainty?

I define "reasonable uncertainty" as:

The poin when I am in disagreement with someone and have the choice to:
1. Work and invest time and effort to expand my own understanding so as to convert my own ideas
so that we can get an agreement. (move towards the Agreement Point in green zone)
or
2. I can give up and go into the red/resentment zone in my diagram. I simply create a thought image that I believe,
such as "they won't listen" and move on to my next failed relationship.
or
3. I can wait for more information to reveal itself, which could take years. But once found I can then pump that into
the conversation to get an agreement or until the other person uses option 2. on me in which case there is nothing I can do
in my view, unless we had an agreed process to address such a situation.

I define "reasonable certainty" as:
an agreement formed using an agreed framework. Where the topic was scrutinised with no room for obsequiousness, sycophants, or
abuse and priming. Just thorough debate till we nut out a subject and still leave it open to be revisited if new information comes to hand.

A bit like our discussion or robust debate with no real need to conclude or close. Nothing wrong with leaving things open, me thinks.

[sakoz]

"Thoughts", by their nature, are tentative, probable, contingent, uncertain till proven.  "Believing" bypasses testing/verification. Example; "I thought the gun was empty."
'Believing' makes for unwarrented certainty.  Language has the habit of believing built into its structure , thereby 'believing' without forethought what we say or think.
What is the state before 'believing'? Is not a legitimate question, when 'believing' is simulataneous with talking/writing. What comes first the chicken or the egg? is not applicable to "believing" and 'thinking". ( Yet not all thoughts are believed, and false thoughts are believed, very puzzling.)
"Frameless Perspective" from whence to 'witness' thought and not bound by thoughts believed in the frame being observed. Freedom from 'conditioning' I found.

I would like to depict "Frameless Perspective", but I don't know how, your diagrames are professional looking. Would you do mine?
On the left side of page, indented about 1 inch, draw a cube about 1 inch per side, then inside that cube draw a side view of a open eye facing right, make the eye about a 3rd in size of cube.
Then about  3 inchs right of cube, draw another eye, also facing right, then to right of second eye, about 3 inchs from eye, draw another cube. You now have diagram A and B.
The cube and eye are the same in both diagrams, whats being depicted is the "shift" of the eye from "out of the frame". (The eye is not a eye or I, but represents "Witnessing Consciousness".(our 'real'I?)

[sakoz]

The diagram, proposed above (#13) has many uses.  "A picture is worth a thousand words." Perceptions imply perspectives.
Are you perceiving from perspective A or perceiving from perspective B? The quality of perceptions is vastly different and more  encompassing from perspective B.
The placebo effect demonstrates that any effect experienced is because of the 'belief' and not by the inert pill.That holds true across the board for any and all beliefs.
That's how we create subjective reality. Can 'you' see beyond your subjective reality? or are you stuck in perspective A?

[rethinkPERFECT]

I think that my thoughts are much closer to beliefs than thoughts.

It is hard for me to think of an absolute thought, I tend to spend my life believing and testing them.
Hence Rethink Perfect, it is more my definition for a belief.

So I am with you sakoz, in my belief, it makes sense.

Q Which comes first uncertainty or change.
Is it uncertainty that creates change or change that creates uncertainty?

[sakoz]

rethinkPERFECT; In part 2 of my #13 above I ask if you would make that A&B diagram I proposed? I'm not 'savvy' with computers, I asked here before, but no one volunteered, I'm hoping you might do it for me.
My e-mail is  sakoz@comcast.net  if your willing to explain to me how to post diagrams.

Your 1st statement (#15) "I think that my thoughts are much closer to beliefs than thoughts". seems ambiguous, to me. I believe thoughts. To me, believing, is a process "done or applied" to thoughts.
To me, just as 'running' does not exist without legs, 'believing' does not exist without content (in the form of thoughts). Thoughts exist whether believed or not; believing per se without thought does not exist, as I see it. Without seeing something fall, we can't be sure gravity exists either.
"It is hard for me to think of an absolute thought,.." In #13 I wrote,"Thoughts, by their nature, are tentative,contingent, uncertain till proven." Even if proven, they are not absolute, they are relative to the current context and possibly of replicated similar context. Some people believe "A is A';- but I see two, are they twins? Only if we hold a A up to a mirror , can we say there's only, one, without a second,:) ( Language seems to be a 'labyrinth/maze' at times; or is it because of how we use it?)

[rethinkPERFECT]

I am sorry sakoz but I am too busy doing my own stuff. I suggest you go to elance and log a job and I am sure you will find someone that will do it for a ceap rate ie under $20.

Regards your post:
I define 'unreasonable certainty' as:" Unwittingly believing a false thought and being as certain about it as one is certain about ones existence and gravity." Are you saying that you are as certain about gravity as you are about your existence? Surely not?

Here is my latest post on my blog about Gravity and a Pink Elephant
I think that…..some people believe that some thoughts are fact.
 That some of the opinions that they hold are somehow more than just opinions but a fact or a certainty.
 
For example a in the 16th centuary it was believed that there was only white swans and the black swan was used in a saying similar to the saying “as rare as hens teeth” or in this case, ”a rare bird in the lands, and very like a black swan.” Both were presumed not to exist. That is teeth in hens and black swans. That was before Europeans visited Australia where we only have black swans. After that they had to drop that idiom.
 
Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote his book on the subject in 2007 called The Black Swan.
 Taleb regards almost all major scientific discoveries, historical events, and artistic accomplishments as “black swans”—undirected and unpredicted. The irony is the some people I mentioned above like to believe in facts or certainty, until disproven. Usually referring to “hindsight” and its benefits. Unfortunately, it seems that no matter how many times this “black swan” thinking is exposed as a fallacy, they continue to believe in such so called facts. I say that people that refer to hindsight have no desire for foresight.
 
Now days there are still some people that believe that the explanation for gravity is now a fact or certain and not a theory any more. They have formed this belief/thought/fact simply because they have never heard of a better explanation. They hold on to this belief even when scientists are modifying our universe by adding “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” to balance their equations. Something smells fishy to me.
 
I am pretty sure that Albert Einstein was not too happy with Gravity as he knew it. Finding a unifying theory was the goal that he never achieved I believe. Maybe it’s time to  drop Gravity, or at least go back to understand that it is not a fact, but just another thought to be believed or not.
 
“I am a pink elephant” is a thought of mine to be believed or not. Or maybe it can be just let to stand to reason along with gravity and see if it fits or falls away. This is what I call Rethink Perfect thinking.

[sakoz]

"Are you saying that you are as certain about gravity as you are about your existence? Surely not?" I consider my "ultimate" existence as 'consciousness and 'gravity' as a concept. I find the concept of gravity so reliable as a predictive 'map', but I don't consider my existence and gravity as factually the 'same, OK I was 'sloppy' in implying the same 'certainty', but in my"mind' I'm aware of the distinction. For daily living in empirical world, I accept both with the same certainty, even though they are 'different' phenomenon.
"...some people believe that some thoughts are fact"(literally).  "some thoughts are fact" as reification? Or the word 'are' functions as 'is', as in the "is of identity"? Is of identity as an equation, that means we would be able to write with the word 'pencil' as well as with it's referent; but that is false identity, and consciously it's obvious, but unconsciously, the equation is taken litereally, and hence, involuntarily reacted to.

What did it take to post your diagrams and the little heart with wings in your posts? Are elance, jobbers? I will search the word "elance'.

[rethinkPERFECT]

I found the heart simply by doing a search on google images and modifyed it to suit.

Using elance your message goes out to the world. In Australia our dollar is worth the same as the US so a job for $20 is quite a lot to someone in china or Bangladesh.

Sorry I can't help you.

[sakoz]

I was going to post this as a new topic, but there's so little interest, I share it with you. I'm glad you came to this site.
......HOW DO YOU 'DO' SELF-DECEPTION?... Some of the effects/results of self-deception are emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, mistakes, stress. Self-deception usually does not  end well. The primary means of self-deception is to unwittingly believe some thougth images are real; very much like "reification".
I'm interested in nocebo effect but the placebo effect demonstrates the 'mechanism'.
The placebo effect involves both deceit and self-deception at the same time. The 'experimenter' deceives the subject into believing some inert/innocous pill is 'medicine'. The 'subject', unwittingly believing, and not recognizing that his belief is false, still reacts to it (as programmed by language to do).
I assume that's what Epictetus meant when he said; "It's not the facts that disturb us but our thoughts about them". ( He didn't mention not recognizing the "doing/believing" part.)
Therapy and prisons are booming as a result of not taking him seriously. That unrecognized 'habit' is even responsible for psychosomtic illness and virtually all mental illness ( except 'damaged' brains.)

Thanks for info on elance, the cubes I want to post would be no bigger than your flying heart , only I would have two cubes and a eye in between. I thought it would be as easy,as the flying heart. I really am 'computer illiterate'.

[rethinkPERFECT]

Self deception, is very interesting to me and all part of the one idea of Rethink Perfect in that what ever I think is perfect it is more than likely not to be the case. AS the saying goes "we are our own worst enemy". If this is the case then everyone else, even our enemies are our friends. Any feedback is better than living in a vacume even when we disagree with it, I think.

So, my swinging diagram above shows when we we hit the red zone or unresonable certainty, that it is then that we need each other to bring us back to "reality" of resonable certainty and resonable uncertainty.

So I reckon so long as we continue to seek feedack and allow it to stand regardless if we agree with it or not ie
"All feedback is worth considering" then my self deception can be controled to some degree.

So I wouldn't say "All you need is love" but I would say "all we need is feedback". Convincing others to be staraight with us and not to piss in our pockets (suck up to us) is another story. Having rules of engagement to encourage such candor is the key there.

Thanks for your Appreciation sakoz, and for the feedback.

[sakoz]

To-day  I 'realized' that 'believing' is non-verbal assuming. So believing a verbal assumption is ratification and reinforcement by a prior assumption, neither of which are necessarily true.
That's the 'making' of unwarranted certainty.  Assuming an assumption is true does not make it so, but gives the appearance as if it were so.

The Stroop Test intermixes non-verbal(color) and words.