people seem to think

we set boundaries on ourselves, and other people.

 

we do, but should we?
What I think would be best, to allow a unit to decide completly about its 'destiny'. If he want to die, go for it, if he wants to take drugs, go for it, if he wants to do nothing, go for it. As long as it doesn't influence other people, he is free to do whatever he wants

 

We imagine boundaries but we cannot escape the effects of our own thinking.

Cognitive processes exist not for thinking but for knowing.

Our purpose is to seek.

 

well, you can physically restrict a person, by holding their body back with your own. you can lock a person in a room, or a concentration camp. you can tell someone things, and restrict their minds. you can hold someone back by not telling them something too. alot of restrictions are in the mind. thinking you can't do something, when you very well can do whatever you want.

i wish people didn't influence each other so much 0: i am one of few people i know who is actually consistent, while changing. other people go though phases and act differently. its so....

 

I am pretty sure something has also influenced you and created the person you are know. We might not realise, but reality always influences us in some way. Who we are, what we do. Some people to extreme level, some to small. Some might become what others are, some might run away and be as different as possibile.

 

There is one mind, we share it. I would say if you notice that people change or act different, you may not be regarding them consistently.

Many people have not developed a consistent "I". I is first one thing and then another and they do not know each other. The I that goes to sleep at night with great resolve for the morrow is not the same I that wakes in the morning preferring to remain in bed.

 

Did you find your 'I'? Do you know how to find it?

 

I am called many things and I am those things at that time and to those people, but,
I am none in particular.

If you are unfamiliar with something, resist the temptation to define it. It is unreliable hearsay. To de-fine is to make gross.

 

If you are unfamiliar, you should try to become familiar. For me defining is giving sense to things. Finding the truth, finding scientific explanation, but also allowing spirituality is my point of life. Knowledge and understanding, no matter how bad the truth is.

 

Knowledge flows freely into an open mind.

The being senses.

We are never upset by a fact but by the interpretation of fact.

All anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so. The truth, if you have perceived it, can only lead to appreciation.

 

Can you give an example?

 

Perhaps you didn't receive an invitation in the mail. That fact by itself is not enough to cause anxiety. The anxiety is caused by the difference between what is and our ideas of what should be.

 

now a harder one:

my mother die. How could this fact not be sad, which is also my interpretation of the fact ? (given the usual situation: I love my mother, I don't gain anything from her death, it doesn't free her from an unbearable pain and I don't believe in a better afterlife)

 

anxiety would likely fluctuate hugely however

depending on which variable you change

the severity of the act

or the severity of 'what should be'.

murder vs. revolution?

 

Not harder. You think she should live longer, she doesn't.

How could that fact not be sad? She bore you. Everybody dies. That you are somewhere between, alive, is reason for appreciation.

You say you don't gain anything by mothers death. What have you lost?

 

Could fluctuate in intensity depending on the level of your attachment to the narrative about events that you have chosen. That you experience anxiety at any level however, is a sign that there is something in your narrative of what is so, that is not in fact, so.

I would point out that the term severity itself is a subjective determination.
But further, no matter the intensity of the perceived problem, the solution is the same, and in those terms, the least irritation is the same as the greatest catastrophe and the least concern is the same as the greatest devotion.

 

So you disagree with the statement that was made in this thread that we are no different from animals.

 

let's not paddle in the shallow waters of pedantica :mickey:

my point stands to reason.

this is the social sciences after all

it's all mere observation.

neo could be the one.