What has been discussed so far in this blog
A lot of articles I discussed previously, I discussed the utter importance of giving some attention to the non-materialistic points of view in life. However as many spiritualists think it can be seen as a “vague” thing, philosophy and the works of Lorin Friesen and others have shown how concrete it can be, as long as we use our “imagination”. However, imagination requires free thought, out of norms and rules, it needs its space to explore, something that is limited for all individuals to do (more than compared in the past) once they work and become too loyal in an organization or to specific clients or ideals. The essence of life is to live frugally, like the old philosopher Socrates, where money is not the only objective, but ethics. He also proposed the idea of there should be one “god” instead of the twelve gods (and not the “god” many people think of). Socrates philosophy though focused that only few can rule the world, only the elite, the philosophers, can rule the world, or in some sense, oligarchy. That is because people who lack philosophy or ethics will not do the categorical imperative and instead do radical evil according to Immanuel Kant. I do not support the idea of that there should be lines who will rule or not rule. In addition, the “categorical imperative” has gone in a wrong context these days, leaving most of the personal issues of life behind, making people only motivated avoiding fines, following rules. Instead, having an “awareness” what to do on our best capacity in an iterative process on what is best and what is not best within our “current situation” is the only sound option. Also, because our options can be at some point wrong, as we will never have the truth, but only a sound option, the mechanism of forgiveness (And there are so many ways this can be expressed instead of the “formal” ones. Even better, avoid “formal” ones.) is not about being pity to others. It is all about not for others to think/take of what you/others said before as being the truth (as many people follow blind faith). Because ultimately, you have to do some “choice” in the end, does it not? A lot of basic foundations need to be examined and explored into so many dimensions while being detached to this society in order to gain a new universality. Definitely, Lorin Friesen has opened a lot of holes that need to be filled up.
I want to mention one thing when I discuss my next topics.
These mechanisms of thoughts may have been explained to you and they may have not been
so clear. However, what is more important is: How are you going to apply those type of
mechanisms? Do we apply Categorical imperative or radical evil? Let me tell
you, science have advanced so far with a mechanism that is really “categorical
imperative” these days. The reason there
is no ethics in science, but ethics in the personal is obvious that it is more
challenging to apply the right processes when a thing involves “me”. I will try
to discuss the two “me” later in my own context, because ultimately, we really
are 2 definitely separate things living
in one body, and Immanuel Kant probably described it very close, as much
messed up as it seems.
The interplay of emotion and confidence part 1
Assume that you are on a park. Also, there is a very small
path on the side of a hill, that while you walk near the corner, the more you
are away from the ground. If you fall from very far away from the ground, you
can be injured. Lets say that while you walk the first 10 minutes, the length
is 5 miles distance from ground and while you reach near the corner, it becomes 50 miles
distance from the ground. In addition, let us say this is the “first time” you
ever tried this and you cannot relate it with any other experience (this
element is very important). What happens in the process behind the mind?
The first time you try that, your emotions of your two “me”
will take control. The “me” that lives in the empirical senses will gain input
and express the fear of the consequences that will happen to the body and gets
injured. Exhorter mode will exaggerate that consequence and will create a
motivation for the individual to avoid walking that path any more across.
Contributor mode wanting to reach its “goal”, will try to take into
consideration of Exhorter mode warning, but will definitely be overwhelmed due
to that warning, with high chances leaving if the risks are too much. The
reason for that is because Contributor mode works behind server mode and
perceiver mode which respectively corresponds to actions and facts. There is no
experience of facts that it is safe, unless it is taught in school that it is
safe to hop around on a tiny little bridge. Let us call this mode as the “very
careful path”.
If the first time, the path becomes successful, or in other
words, the frequency of actions doing the same iteration, or samples, are
positive, then when the exhorter mode gives its warning, the contributor mode
will disregard it less of its warnings. That is because the Contributor mode is
backed up by facts (after all the times I tried, the results were positive) and
his actions showed that he can handle it (I have experience, I did it a dozen
of times, my muscle are more adapted to it). However, is this good? No, it is
the other edge of the conundrum, it is the “overconfidence path”.
The main point is that at start, you have to be careful. You
have no choice. You have to gain input and memorize stuff. After that, you will
gain confidence, too much confidence, that you may stray from the “correct
path”. That is what happens to this society, that they have too much
confidence, that they have “strayed” a path they think it is the right one,
when it is not. And it has become in so many iterations this process throughout
history. According to Thomas Kuhn, we always replace the Old World and create a
New World. For instance, a “world” that
thought people skin color matters and then there is another “world” which
disputes any form of discrimination. I have told you that the next revolution
will be about the split of the personal and the non-personal. Each revolution
has its own type of expression that is different from others. So do not expect
it to work in the same premises.
So what does it all mean? Emotion and Confidence are both
important. So people that buff out on whether you can handle confidence under pressure is a terrible thing of being your only skill. That is how organizations grow a culture with overconfidence and cannot handle dealing with organizational pain (mental networks). However, we didn’t discuss the interplay of those two into much
detail. There are so many dynamics that take into play when you do an action, such as the mercy mode
integrating all the actions as a snapshot of itself while the teacher mode
focusing on what value or what framework all those actions and the rest of the
actions interplay within the individual (the two me "behave" differently and have different needs). I guess this is not discussed as much
as well, as I have not analyzed much extensively to this, which points that I
will continue this blog series on a later post