Shoulds & ShouldNots

They occur in my spaces mostly without the words & language & voices when I am about to do something contrary. And sometimes with voices & words. Some might call it the conscience. It seems like a very peculiar ontology to adopt for evolution. Why not wholeness?
(*)

Tags

  1. conscience
  2. shoulds
  3. shouldnots
  4. item 16786

Comments


Seth says
seth 2013-09-29 09:10:06 16786
Well certainly shoulds are, ontologically, about what will happen ... they are "meta to" it.    Obviously lower animals have no such meta awareness.   So yes, evolution has chosen us to be able to stand off from our actions and decide about them.  It sure may well be peculiar ... but, me,  i like it ... it helps ...  and am not into reversing it ...
... i ... err ... don't think it should not be that way .

apparently wholeness is great ... but awareness is better .
More precisely shoulds & shouldNots are something which gives an emotional charge to potential actions within some context. Charge is being used here almost like what physics assign to an electron - a  fundamental property which has 2 states attractive & repulsive.  There may be other kinds of charges except binary. There are lots of assumptions in your psychology above which I don't agree with & won's debate at this time.
It is the peculiarity of having a duality in a conscience that amuses me.

Seth says
ME 2013-09-29 10:59:34 16786
seth 2013-09-29 10:55:18 16786
source: mark
It is the peculiarity of having a duality in a conscience that amuses me.
... yes the duality amuses me too .  It is peculiar!  Yet it is.  There just is no denying it.  The persistence of this meta-world just does seem to be an undeniable fact of our human experience.

I have heard that we can perceive the world without it ... though i have never heard gurus touting that they can do it for extended periods of time and actually conduct their lives that way.
It is of the same peculiar quality as having a "conversation" in your head when there is just (usually) one identity there. One can silence the thought for brief times.  It was in so doing one day while making my morning coffee that I groked the charge nature of the conscience operating  to guide me through the making of the coffee though without language.


i had not thought of "a charge" between entities in my being directing me ... but now that you mention it, yes it does seems to be so .

the morning coffee ceremony is a good example for me too ... as i am hyper aware of it ... even to the point where an outsider would think my detailed awarenesses of that would be quite absurd.  i almost hesitate to write about it or even mention it to denise for she would eat me alive .

Seth says
seth 2013-09-29 10:55:18 16786
source: mark
It is the peculiarity of having a duality in a conscience that amuses me.
... yes the duality amuses me too .  It is peculiar!  Yet it is.  There just is no denying it.  The persistence of this meta-world just does seem to be an undeniable fact of our human experience.

I have heard that we can perceive the world without it ... though i have never heard gurus touting that they can do it for extended periods of time and actually conduct their lives that way.
It is of the same peculiar quality as having a "conversation" in your head when there is just (usually) one identity there. One can silence the thought for brief times.  It was in so doing one day while making my morning coffee that I groked the charge nature of the conscience operating  to guide me through the making of the coffee though without language.


Seth says
I treated it like a working meditation & tried to be silent, no inner dialogue nor other thoughts except the making of the coffee. I was going for being with the task at hand instead of being somewhere else like the thoughts in my mind when I wake up.

Seth says
ME 2013-09-29 12:03:29 16786
I treated it like a working meditation & tried to be silent, no inner dialogue nor other thoughts except the making of the coffee. I was going for being with the task at hand instead of being somewhere else like the thoughts in my mind when I wake up.
well every morning i treat it as a meditation in awareness and action.  it is always different, never the same.  but i haven't ever tried it like you have of not thinking or feeling or awareing at all ... but just doint it.  i might have to try that ... not an easy piece .

Seth says
of course, there are many things we do in life that we do not think about at all ... but just do them.  frequently i have found them done and then were surprised about it.  like for example the car driving itself to the post office box when me and denise had intended it to drive us somwhere else .

Seth says
seth 2013-09-29 12:33:15 16786
of course, there are many things we do in life that we do not think about at all ... but just do them.  frequently i have found them done and then were surprised about it.  like for example the car driving itself to the post office box when me and denise had intended it to drive us somwhere else .
Well what I was talking about was being silent as in a meditation or za-zen while doing the coffee. Being somewhere else while in a car is peculiar, maybe even dangerous, but not uncommon.


Seth says
seth 2013-09-29 12:30:03 16786
ME 2013-09-29 12:03:29 16786
I treated it like a working meditation & tried to be silent, no inner dialogue nor other thoughts except the making of the coffee. I was going for being with the task at hand instead of being somewhere else like the thoughts in my mind when I wake up.
well every morning i treat it as a meditation in awareness and action.  it is always different, never the same.  but i haven't ever tried it like you have of not thinking or feeling or awareing at all ... but just doint it.  i might have to try that ... not an easy piece .
Not empty, not trying for awareness but being present without verbage was my formula.


Seth says
seth 2013-09-30 07:37:21 16786
ME 2013-09-29 12:43:56 16786
seth 2013-09-29 12:30:03 16786
ME 2013-09-29 12:03:29 16786
I treated it like a working meditation & tried to be silent, no inner dialogue nor other thoughts except the making of the coffee. I was going for being with the task at hand instead of being somewhere else like the thoughts in my mind when I wake up.
well every morning i treat it as a meditation in awareness and action.  it is always different, never the same.  but i haven't ever tried it like you have of not thinking or feeling or awareing at all ... but just doint it.  i might have to try that ... not an easy piece .
Not empty, not trying for awareness but being present without verbage was my formula.


"without verbage" needs some further clarification.  most of my thoughts do not ever arise to the level of being voiced.  i was aware this morning that the kitchen was in order and that i had imporved the position of the filters on the shelf ... but those did not get voiced.  i was also aware that probably i would write this and talked to you about what was going on ... and experienced some extra echoing of that awareness ... and perhaps voiced some things i would write to you about them.  i was aware that jason was in the bathrom showering and drawing coffee water would change his water pressure and that his sanwitch meat would run out later this week and even voiced that Heintz got there katchup bottel pretty cherried.  there is no doubt that knowing that i would write this was echoed then and even now ... "writing changes awareness" ... that was voiced and is voiced now ... again, again, again ...

.... & writing changes your awareness in what way & how?  What I have been talking about some call "presemce of mind"  except free from the baggage of language. I doubt that you can write about anything without being aware of it first so the awareness preceeded the writing.  Maybe the opportunity you give yourself to write about something gives you the impetus to go looking & become awares of something to write about, eh?

Seth says
seth 2013-10-01 09:19:30 16786
well "presence of mind" is certainly a good thing to do .   i should do it more often.

being present to what i am doing, without thinking in words about what i am doing ... is only possible ... err ... for those thing that i do habitually ... and perhaps also where i am responding directly to uncomplicated dangerous or exciting situations in the world.  and, i suppose, i could do something even entirely new without thinking about it, by just acting from instinct without thought or contemplation.   I will need to watch for those kinds of events.

my laptop just warned me that its charge was below 5% and i immediately connected it to the power cord ... without thinking a single thought in language ... no thought was necessary ... my instinct dictated my action ... it has happened many times before and my charging cord was in it's proper place as planned.

frequently i am thinking about things other that what i am doing ... sketching words to myself or even to say out loud or to write about ... even perhaps  when what i am doing should require my full attention.   that certainly can cause problems like driving to the wrong location.  i suppose that is a bad thing to do ... especially when it becomes a habit.  we even have a term for that ... "absent minded".

going to the moon was quite a thing and could not have not been accomplished without calculating thinking and writing. doing things with others does require talking to them about it.  but most of my mundane personal life does not need that kind of awareness at all.  perhaps i should do it now without thinking in words about it?  i don't know.  i guess, mostly i already do.

But back to the question in your item: "Why not wholeness?" ...

I do kind of agree with what i think your thrust is.  When our moral codes and our intentions and desires are completely unified, there just is no reason to think about our actions.   Me thinks that would be a glorious state to be in!    Is that what you are asking?
I think when I originally wrote it I was thinking of it as a design flaw as seen through an amusement point of view.  Would you write a computer program which was conflicted in the way it produced  its output? Maybe it is payback for the free will spec - maybe not!


Seth says
well "presence of mind" is certainly a good thing to do .   i should do it more often.

being present to what i am doing, without thinking in words about what i am doing ... is only possible ... err ... for those thing that i do habitually ... and perhaps also where i am responding directly to uncomplicated dangerous or exciting situations in the world.  and, i suppose, i could do something even entirely new without thinking about it, by just acting from instinct without thought or contemplation.   I will need to watch for those kinds of events.

my laptop just warned me that its charge was below 5% and i immediately connected it to the power cord ... without thinking a single thought in language ... no thought was necessary ... my instinct dictated my action ... it has happened many times before and my charging cord was in it's proper place as planned.

frequently i am thinking about things other that what i am doing ... sketching words to myself or even to say out loud or to write about ... even perhaps  when what i am doing should require my full attention.   that certainly can cause problems like driving to the wrong location.  i suppose that is a bad thing to do ... especially when it becomes a habit.  we even have a term for that ... "absent minded".

going to the moon was quite a thing and could not have not been accomplished without calculating thinking and writing. doing things with others does require talking to them about it.  but most of my mundane personal life does not need that kind of awareness at all.  perhaps i should do it now without thinking in words about it?  i don't know.  i guess, mostly i already do.

But back to the question in your item: "Why not wholeness?" ...

I do kind of agree with what i think your thrust is.  When our moral codes and our intentions and desires are completely unified, there just is no reason to think about our actions.   Me thinks that would be a glorious state to be in!    Is that what you are asking?

Seth says
seth 2013-10-01 11:19:32 16786
ME 2013-10-01 10:21:09 16786
seth 2013-10-01 09:19:30 16786
well "presence of mind" is certainly a good thing to do .   i should do it more often.

being present to what i am doing, without thinking in words about what i am doing ... is only possible ... err ... for those thing that i do habitually ... and perhaps also where i am responding directly to uncomplicated dangerous or exciting situations in the world.  and, i suppose, i could do something even entirely new without thinking about it, by just acting from instinct without thought or contemplation.   I will need to watch for those kinds of events.

my laptop just warned me that its charge was below 5% and i immediately connected it to the power cord ... without thinking a single thought in language ... no thought was necessary ... my instinct dictated my action ... it has happened many times before and my charging cord was in it's proper place as planned.

frequently i am thinking about things other that what i am doing ... sketching words to myself or even to say out loud or to write about ... even perhaps  when what i am doing should require my full attention.   that certainly can cause problems like driving to the wrong location.  i suppose that is a bad thing to do ... especially when it becomes a habit.  we even have a term for that ... "absent minded".

going to the moon was quite a thing and could not have not been accomplished without calculating thinking and writing. doing things with others does require talking to them about it.  but most of my mundane personal life does not need that kind of awareness at all.  perhaps i should do it now without thinking in words about it?  i don't know.  i guess, mostly i already do.

But back to the question in your item: "Why not wholeness?" ...

I do kind of agree with what i think your thrust is.  When our moral codes and our intentions and desires are completely unified, there just is no reason to think about our actions.   Me thinks that would be a glorious state to be in!    Is that what you are asking?
I think when I originally wrote it I was thinking of it as a design flaw as seen through an amusement point of view.  Would you write a computer program which was conflicted in the way it produced  its output? Maybe it is payback for the free will spec - maybe not!


... or maybe it was a self corrective feature that emerged through evolution.  Sans that feature i doubt our culture would have even emerged.  We would have been just like dogs and would be shitting on our non-existent sidewalks with no feelings of guilt ... quite unified, though.
I doubt that any of that is the outcome of evolution or survival first design.  Darwinian evolution produced the behavior you see on Wild Kingdom - eat anythingy you can catch.  BTW, how do you shit on an non-existent sidewalk ? Guilt is not Darwinian. Our society or culture as you often choose to call it & presume you speak for, is not a Darwinian production. Survival of the fittest produces at most a pack of wolves or apes who copulate a lot & can catch enough food to keep on copulating & feed the pack.
IMHO, (which is neither)!

Seth says
ME 2013-10-01 10:21:09 16786
seth 2013-10-01 09:19:30 16786
well "presence of mind" is certainly a good thing to do .   i should do it more often.

being present to what i am doing, without thinking in words about what i am doing ... is only possible ... err ... for those thing that i do habitually ... and perhaps also where i am responding directly to uncomplicated dangerous or exciting situations in the world.  and, i suppose, i could do something even entirely new without thinking about it, by just acting from instinct without thought or contemplation.   I will need to watch for those kinds of events.

my laptop just warned me that its charge was below 5% and i immediately connected it to the power cord ... without thinking a single thought in language ... no thought was necessary ... my instinct dictated my action ... it has happened many times before and my charging cord was in it's proper place as planned.

frequently i am thinking about things other that what i am doing ... sketching words to myself or even to say out loud or to write about ... even perhaps  when what i am doing should require my full attention.   that certainly can cause problems like driving to the wrong location.  i suppose that is a bad thing to do ... especially when it becomes a habit.  we even have a term for that ... "absent minded".

going to the moon was quite a thing and could not have not been accomplished without calculating thinking and writing. doing things with others does require talking to them about it.  but most of my mundane personal life does not need that kind of awareness at all.  perhaps i should do it now without thinking in words about it?  i don't know.  i guess, mostly i already do.

But back to the question in your item: "Why not wholeness?" ...

I do kind of agree with what i think your thrust is.  When our moral codes and our intentions and desires are completely unified, there just is no reason to think about our actions.   Me thinks that would be a glorious state to be in!    Is that what you are asking?
I think when I originally wrote it I was thinking of it as a design flaw as seen through an amusement point of view.  Would you write a computer program which was conflicted in the way it produced  its output? Maybe it is payback for the free will spec - maybe not!


... or maybe it was a self corrective feature that emerged through evolution.  Sans that feature i doubt our culture would have even emerged.  We would have been just like dogs and would be shitting on our non-existent sidewalks with no feelings of guilt ... quite unified, though.

Seth says
seth 2013-10-03 09:16:39 16786
well me, i try not to let my own emotional prejudices like a dread of some thing called "materialistic science" and something else called "mechanistic means" cause me to zig in my thinking when a zag would allow it to more accurately reflect the world i actually do live in.

instead i have cultured a love of the amazingly incredible phenomena that actually is happening. 

but, hey, you do it your traditional way which you doubtlessly have learned from your mom and dad passed to them by a long line of respected men ... that actually is part of the beauty, no?

now, i am going to assume that at this point any rational considerations are not going to be possible on this subject ... so i'll just flash some iconography
They are not emotional prejudices, nor dread - you lie about me by innuendo. Science IS materialistic.  Spiritual Science as espoused by RS & AC enlarge the view beyond your own prejudice against them.  I studied 4 years of chemistry, 2 years of physics 4 years of mathematics, 1 year of zoology,  & a course in psychology at UCLA & graduated. In the series through the worm hole where they ask all kinds of questions & particular on the series episodes on the Universe they question a "mechanical universe". check it out.  Here is an icon for you:



Seth says
ME 2013-10-03 08:37:11 16786
source: ... ... err ... so you have evolution stopping with the "Wild Kingdom" ?   ... not continueting with humanity ... perchance not even continueing with culture and society? ... omg, omg, omg.   What made that happen? ... some kind of divine intervention i suppose, eh?

Thing is, change piled upon change ends up making things that are entirely different than what started.   Features get sustained because they work.  That which does not work does not get sustained.   You don't need all your copulating gerbils to effect it.   And that principle does not magically stop by some kind of divine sanctification of some peculiar result.  That is just not the way things work ...   XXXXXXXX bloviations notwistanding.
... All evolution takes place in the mind of Darwin & Dawkins & their supplicants in the materialistic sciences. The only controlling force in the notion "survival of the fittest" is that it survived.  Emotional things like love & benevolence are concepts added after survival. Infinite change still can't make them in a 13.8 billion year old Universe by mechanistic means. Love doesn't make you survive - as Jesus proved. You can rationalize after the fact with concepts, but they are just YOUR story.

Basically after 13.8 billion years all that evolved is more fucking!


Seth says
seth 2013-10-03 07:50:54 16786
source: mark
BTW, how do you shit on an non-existent sidewalk ?
... you don't!    ... which, of course, is why they don't exist.
not mentioning then would have made more sense!


See Also

  1. Thought Conscience with 18 viewings related by tag "conscience".
  2. Thought Creative use of the Conscience with 1 viewings related by tag "conscience".