Soul, genes, karma and learning 3D lessons

Approaching Infinity said:
I think you hit on one of the important things about this study, because it and others like it are often used by the hardcore atheist/materialist types to say that humans have absolutely no free will. But that's not necessarily the case. Like you said, we can consciously choose to do other than what our habits would have us do. Unfortunately, experimenters haven't really realized this for the most part, so they don't test for it.

The lab setting has some similarities to real life, but there are potentially some big differences. For example, can choosing whether to use your right or left hand be compared to something that you consider over a period of days, weeks, or even months, and potentially with feedback from others? Or, can a person actively change their mind within those 7 seconds? And, like you said, can we consciously 'train' our unconscious to act in new ways, develop new habits? For example, when playing a piece of music, I'm guessing that a musician's unconscious has already 'decided' to perform certain movements before the actual performance of those movements. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been any conscious effort in order to get there (e.g. choosing to practice rather than eat potato chips and watch old episodes of Friends).

So we could say that our unconscious DOES dictate our responses, most of the time, and therefore runs on "automatic". BUT the question is, who is the programmer? If the programmer is life experiences (past and present), influenced by others etc. then yes, we (the conscious part of ourselves) have no free will. BUT, if we (the conscious part) decides to turn on the unconscious part and say: "ok, things are gonna change around here! All you foreign installations, OUT!" and we proceed to give new instructions, (kind of like that video of Putin and factory managers!) then while our unconscious still runs "instinctively", it is doing so under OUR instruction, and towards fulfilling OUR consciously chosen live aim.

I know I'm just more or less rephrasing what Gurdjieff and the Work are all about, but it's kind of interesting to be able to say it in your own words. I'll call it the "gimme back my pen" school of Work on the self! :D


https://youtu.be/flC---s2moA
 
Apologies if this is off-topic. Since this afternoon when the topic went into the arena of both the conscious & unconscious mind, I found myself to be struggling to keep abreast with what was being said.

For one, my instinctive thoughts on the unconscious being summoned was to immediately think that this is something that represents an impossibility in terms of ever getting to that point where we'd consciously want to be.

Scottie said:
Then just imagine what would happen if we were aware of these unconscious thoughts and emotions... What if we were aware of them, and instead of automatically acting on them / "creating" something we don't want - over and over - we could consciously choose to act differently?

My thoughts upon reading the above was that, "What is this unconscious? Is it simply anything not in the conscious mind?"... If it's anything not in the conscious mind, then it equates to quite a lot... is it processes that occur unconsciously e.g. biological processes?... is it experiences we've had which have left a sort of imprint on us which influences our behaviours but which we aren't consciously aware off? What is it exactly?

Plus since it appears to be a sort of huge black hole in which anything can be thrown into... it seemed to me that it's setting an impossible challenge for the conscious mind. How can one truly know what lurks where one can't see? It ain't called the unconscious for no reason... Logic dictates it's a black hole that the conscious mind can't truly come to fully know, therefore always leaving us in the position of never having solved the problem. The problem is designed such that it can't be solved... osit. For sure, it calls for hardwork, sincerity, networking etc but ultimately, the bottom line, is that, the design is such that it's unsolvable. Anyways, this is why I was struggling. Hopefully it makes sense?

I was looking around to try and figure out exactly what this unconscious is and so far the best thing I've found is this

_http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Unconscious_mind

Interesting quotes

Unconscious process and unconscious mind

Neuroscience, while an unlikely place to find support for a proposition as adaptable as the unconscious mind, [19] has nonetheless produced some interesting results. "Researchers at Columbia University Medical Center have found that fleeting images of fearful faces—images that appear and disappear so quickly that they escape conscious awareness—produce unconscious anxiety that can be detected in the brain with the latest neuroimaging machines."[20] The conscious mind is hundreds of milliseconds behind those unconscious processes.

While these results represent research into the unconscious processes of the mind, a distinction has to be drawn between unconscious processes and the unconscious mind. They are not identical. The results of neuroscience cannot demonstrate the existence of the unconscious mind. The unconscious mind and its expected psychoanalytic contents [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] are also different from unconsciousness, coma, and a minimally conscious state. Psychoanalytic theory is, at best, a metanarrative on the way the mind functions, and not the result of scientific findings.

Plus it looks like different people had different ideas about what it was

The Unconscious is a rich concept with a multi-faceted history. For Freud it began as that part of the mind that contained our repressed anxieties, and later it developed into the site of repression for the Oedipus complex, which is the illicit desire to sleep with one's mother and kill one's father. Still later, when Freud developed his structural model, it became the site not only of the Id, but also the Superego, which is the civilizing "instinct" that represented the legacy of the parental voice, making both inaccessible to the functioning Ego.

For Lacan the unconscious was "structured like a language," and in reality it was language, that is, that element which is already given and is not really available to subjectivity. For Jung the unconscious contains both personal material that has been repressed or simply forgotten, but more importantly it contains the collective unconscious, an accumulation of inherited experiences of all humankind that guides and advises our conscious mind. For cognitive psychologists it consists of processes and information that operate, without need for our conscious intervention, to enable us to make sense of the world.

Many others reject the whole notion of an unconscious mind, regarding it as merely a social construction, denying the need to invoke mental processes that are not accessible, and arguing against the validity of such non-falsifiable theories.

Still though, it's undeniable our conscious mind is acted upon by 'things' which are beyond its scope

Still, various observers throughout history have argued that there are influences on consciousness from other parts of the mind, invoking notions such as intuition. Other terms that relate to semi-conscious states or processes include: awakening, implicit memory, subliminal messages, trance, and hypnosis. While sleep, sleep walking, delirium, and coma may signal the presence of unconscious processes they may be different from an unconscious mind.

Plus

Controversy

Today, there are still fundamental disagreements within psychology about the nature of the unconscious mind. Outside formal psychology, a whole world of pop-psychological speculation has grown up in which the unconscious mind is held to have any number of properties and abilities, from animalistic and innocent, child-like aspects to savant-like, all-perceiving, mystical and occultic properties.

The unconscious may simply stand as a metaphor that ought not to be taken literally. There is a great controversy over the concept of an unconscious in regard to its scientific or rational validity and whether the unconscious mind exists at all. Among philosophers, is Karl Popper, one of Freud's most notable contemporary opponents. Popper argued that Freud's theory of the unconscious was not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. He objected not so much to the idea that things happened in our minds that we are unconscious of; he objected to investigations of mind that were not falsifiable. If one could connect every imaginable experimental outcome with Freud's theory of the unconscious mind, then no experiment could refute the theory.

Unlike Popper, the epistemologist Adolf Grunbaum has argued that psychoanalysis could be falsifiable, but its evidence has serious epistemological problems. David Holmes [30] examined sixty years of research about the Freudian concept of “repression,” and concluded that there is no positive evidence for this concept. Given the lack of evidence of many Freudian hypotheses, some scientific researchers proposed the existence of unconscious mechanisms that are very different from the Freudian ones. They speak of a “cognitive unconscious” (John Kihlstrom), [31] [32] an “adaptive unconscious” (Timothy Wilson), [33] or a “dumb unconscious” (Loftus & Klinger) [34] that executes automatic processes but lacks the complex mechanisms of repression and symbolic return of the repressed. (There are so many different unconscious minds... it's too confusing... :cry:)

Ludwig Wittgenstein and Jacques Bouveresse argued that Freudian thought exhibits a systemic confusion between reasons and causes; the method of interpretation can give reasons for new meanings, but are useless to find causal relations (which require experimental research). Wittgenstein gave the following example (in his Conversations with Rush Rhees), "if we throw objects on a table, and we give free associations and interpretations about those objects, we’ll find a meaning for each object and its place, but we won’t find the causes."

In the social sciences, John Watson, who is considered the first American behaviorist, criticized the idea of an "unconscious mind," along similar lines of reasoning, and focused on observable behaviors rather than on introspection. Other early psychologists, such as the experimental psycholgist Wilhelm Wundt, regarded psychology as the scientific study of immediate experience, and thus the study of human consciousness, or the mind, as long as mind is understood as the totality of conscious experience at a given moment. Wundt denied the role of unconscious processes, defining psychology as the study of conscious, and therefore observable, states.

Other critics of Freudian unconscious were Hans Eysenck, Jacques Van Rillaer, Frank Cioffi, Marshal Edelson, and Edward Erwin. Some stress, however, that these critics did not grasp the real importance of Freud conceptions, and instead tried to criticize Freud on the basis of other fields.

In modern cognitive psychology, many researchers have sought to strip the notion of the unconscious from its Freudian heritage, and alternative terms such as 'implicit' or 'automatic' have come into currency. These traditions emphasize the degree to which cognitive processing happens outside the scope of cognitive awareness and how what we are unaware of can influence other cognitive processes as well as behavior. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] Active research traditions related to the unconscious include implicit memory (for example, priming or attitude) and non-conscious acquisition of knowledge (such as work by Pawel Lewicki).

Towards the bottom of the page they talk about newer research about how we learn unconsciously (without conscious awareness) in some situations...

In the learning phase of a typical study, participants were exposed to a stream of stimuli (trials or events, such as strings of letters, digits, pictures, or descriptions of stimulus persons) containing some consistent but non-salient (hidden) co-variation between features or events. For example, every stimulus a person presented as "fair" would also have a slightly elongated face. It turned out that even if the manipulated co-variations were non-salient and inaccessible to subjects' conscious awareness, the perceivers would still acquire a non-conscious working knowledge about those co-variations. For example, if in the testing phase of the study, participants were asked to make intuitive judgments about the personalities of new stimulus persons presented only as pictures (with no personality descriptions), and judge the "fairness" of the depicted individuals, they tend to follow the rules non-consciously acquired in the learning phase and if the stimulus person had a slightly elongated face, they would report an intuitive feeling that this person was "fair."

Stuff like the above can explain biases to some degree in the 'blink' mold? E.g. male = active, female = passive association that is programmed into many people...

Back to the discussion at hand, what do you guys mean when you are referring to the unconscious?

How does one master what is in the unconscious so that we can be free from its dictates? (I believe this to be an impossibility personally as we can't objectively know what is not in our conscious awareness).
 
Joe said:
So we could say that our unconscious DOES dictate our responses, most of the time, and therefore runs on "automatic". BUT the question is, who is the programmer? If the programmer is life experiences (past and present), influenced by others etc. then yes, we (the conscious part of ourselves) have no free will. BUT, if we (the conscious part) decides to turn on the unconscious part and say: "ok, things are gonna change around here! All you foreign installations, OUT!" and we proceed to give new instructions, (kind of like that video of Putin and factory managers!) then while our unconscious still runs "instinctively", it is doing so under OUR instruction, and towards fulfilling OUR consciously chosen live aim.

I know I'm just more or less rephrasing what Gurdjieff and the Work are all about, but it's kind of interesting to be able to say it in your own words.

Not just interesting, but really helpful, too, I think! Gurdjieff would yell at people who used "his words" around him. He wanted them to be able to put it in their own words. That's what shows that you really understand and have made the ideas 'your own'.

It's also fun to see how different people have used different words to say essentially the same thing. And depending on the words they use, you get a glimpse into their own personality and perhaps get a glimpse into some aspect that isn't made more explicit in others' perspectives.

I'll call it the "gimme back my pen" school of Work on the self! :D

LOL! I guess it's just a matter of takin' it all apart then Putin' it back together.
 
luke wilson said:
Back to the discussion at hand, what do you guys mean when you are referring to the unconscious?

I think you defined it well: everything that is not conscious. Different theorists will bracket different features and content into their own definitions, but that's probably the most complete one: all information received by the mind from the world and the body that we're not consciously aware of, memories, implicit knowledge, basic beliefs and assumptions, biological and social drives, buried emotions, 'psychic' influences, etc.

I think the best overall description still comes from F.W.H. Myers's work on what he called the "subliminal self". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_W._H._Myers) William James said that "through him for the first time, psychologists are in possession of their full material, and mental phenomena are set down in an adequate inventory."

How does one master what is in the unconscious so that we can be free from its dictates? (I believe this to be an impossibility personally as we can't objectively know what is not in our conscious awareness).

Did you read Tim Wilson's "Strangers to Ourselves"? That's probably the first one to read on the topic.
 
Joe said:
Thanks for sharing that sitting. The only thing I would make explicit about what it says is that it is *hidden* or unconscious thoughts and emotions that shape our reality. So the work involved is digging out that which is hidden within us, those unconscious beliefs etc. that rule our lives from behind the scenes and thereby shape our reality.

This makes me think of Richard Dawkins' concept of memetics basically being a form of mental/emotional DNA that is transmitted from parents to their young through their rearing and education. Since we know that thoughts and feelings can alter our cellular DNA also, it seems like this component has very real consequences for a child both from the bottom-up (genetic and epigenetic) and the top-down (child-rearing influecning the memes/ideas/beliefs).

When you work on yourself, you are improving not only your mind beliefs/habits, but also your DNA and physiology. When someone who works reproduces these improvements by having children, it allows souls with different or better karma to incarnate. This brings incarnation opportunities for people who perhaps are less karmically weighted by deeply engrained STS patterns.

In cataclysmic times it's the people with more false beliefs who are at much greater risk of dying. If these are events are severe enough, perhaps the only people left over would be those with the beliefs and ideas and DNA that allows them to thrive in environments that demand higher levels of adaptibility and compassion. In such a situation would there be a naturally greater number of STO-oriented souls that find suitable bodies here?

Also, Caesar "got around", hmm. :cool2: I also understand Gurdjieff had a ton of progeny as well, and did mention in Beelzebub's Tales that the self-work does improve the potential of the offspring.

On a personal note, I've had an indigenous past life memory come up before, about being orphaned after my family and village was massacred by an invading tribe. When I was litttle I would always worry about not seeing other family members again after we took separate cars to a family gathering. When I play D&D and other tabletop rpgs, or write stories, all the people I "play" or write about are orphans. I have both my parents, and have a very good relationship with them as an adult. But my mother lost her mother when she was maybe 4 or 5 to some medical malpractice, and she was replaced with a psychopath/narcissist more or less days afterward. Thankfully my great grandparents rescued and reared her as their own. When I was around the same age as her, my dad's mother died the same way as my other grandmother did, more or less. So both my parents lost their mothers still in their prime, and yet although I have both of my parents, and I feel connected to orphans for some reason.

Obviously on my dad's side I wouldn't have gotten that modified DNA from him (unless he had some residually), but yeah.
 
sitting said:
My confidence in the above material is substantially enhanced by the non-existence of contradiction with any and all of the C's commentary. Had there been such, I would've felt differently ... as I consider the C's to be higher order entities.

Thanks for the Seth quote, sitting. I agree that there is a beautiful absene of contradiction, also between the C's material, Gurdjieff's material, and single items of new scientific research that bring 'esoteric' concepts back into the 'scientific'.

Approaching Infinity said:
luke wilson said:
Back to the discussion at hand, what do you guys mean when you are referring to the unconscious?

I think you defined it well: everything that is not conscious.

Let's suppose that trauma-related epigenetic encoding present in the DNA (inherited from distant ancestors) is subconscious for the most part -- unknown to us (or even to our parents) but with nevertheless very real, sometimes detrimental, effects. Some affected people may discover that 'something is not right' and seek relief from it. What then would be effective therapeutic methods to discover such past traumas (let's say 2-3 generations ago) and bring it back into the light of consciousness?

This thread has mentioned some techniques for that (writing, dreaming, etc.), but one other such method seems to be "Familiy Constellations", an alternative therapeutic method. In a safe environment, in a larger room, attendees (ideally neutral strangers to each other) place other people as representatives of their own family tree in relation to themselves. The 'placement' of people then can make visible previously hidden relations and dynamics. In my own view, it is some sort of 'channeling' of the subconscious with an emphasis on the family tree.

Another way to access that subconscious information field could be "muscle testing" of Kinesiology , what (Dr. Klinghardt I believe) has termed Psycho-Kinesiology.

Both mentioned methods require a well-educated, sensitive and conscionable therapist. As with other alternative therapies, it's easy to get into snake-oil esoteric hocus-pocus.
 
whitecoast said:
On a personal note, I've had an indigenous past life memory come up before, about being orphaned after my family and village was massacred by an invading tribe. When I was litttle I would always worry about not seeing other family members again after we took separate cars to a family gathering. When I play D&D and other tabletop rpgs, or write stories, all the people I "play" or write about are orphans. I have both my parents, and have a very good relationship with them as an adult. But my mother lost her mother when she was maybe 4 or 5 to some medical malpractice, and she was replaced with a psychopath/narcissist more or less days afterward. Thankfully my great grandparents rescued and reared her as their own. When I was around the same age as her, my dad's mother died the same way as my other grandmother did, more or less. So both my parents lost their mothers still in their prime, and yet although I have both of my parents, and I feel connected to orphans for some reason.

Very interesting, whitecoast. This and other bits of this thread also reminded me of a passage in The Myth of Sanity, by Martha Stout. She doesn't go into the effect "secondary trauma", as she calls it, may have on our DNA, but it's interesting that she does mention this PTSD throughout generations, and the beliefs that can get passed on:

But chillingly, trauma has a second, even more covert mechanism. It can affect children and adults directly, as in primary trauma, or it can function vicariously, make a long, stealthy leap from one person's mind to another person's, across space and time. Secondary trauma, the vicarious sort; is a term used most often by psychotherapists, to refer to the fact that a person (such as a psychotherapist) can begin to show significant symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder merely from hearing repeated stories about the traumatic experiences of other people (such as trauma patients). Secondary trauma quietly and pervasively occurs even in the lives of those who are not psychotherapists and who do not treat trauma patients, for the simple reason that, in a world where too many children have never even slept on a mattress, extreme human misery is not far removed from any of us.

In 1993, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies stated in World Disaster Report that in the quarter century between 1967 and, 1991, disasters in various places around the world killed seven million people, and directly affected another three billion. In the same report, the Red Cross estimated that, between the end of World War II and 1991, about forty million people were killed in wars and conflicts, our perennial man­made disasters.

Indeed, viewed in cold objectivity, we are shell-shocked as an entire species.

If we travel a little away from the developed world, we find that more than one fifth of the global population still lives in extreme poverty, and life expectancy in some of the least-developed countries is forty-three years. At least one billion people now living on our planet suffer from chronic hunger, and a human child dies from malnutrition every four seconds. The World Health Organi­zation reports that half of humanity still lacks regular access to the treatment of common diseases, and to the most basic medicines.

In terms of both space and time, we are not very far away from similar levels of human suffering, though we seldom reflect upon the fact. If the history of humanity is compared to an hour, the so called developed world is but a few seconds old. Many of our great-grandparents, and even some of our grandparents, spent most of their lives in conditions we would consider unbearable.

Commonplace horror is only two or three generations behind us, and in places, not behind us at all. The Holocaust is a living memory. Other projects of ethnic genocide are being pursued even as these words are written.

And most of us have heard the stories, usually while we were children, and usually from people we cared about. For some, the accounts were only of the walking-to-school-five-miles-through-­the-snow variety. But for others, the stories were about surviving daily hunger, or a war, or a death camp.

One of the most poignant examples of secondary trauma that I have ever known involved a woman who had seen various therapists because of a vivid nightmare. This nightmare wrecked her sleep every night, leaving her chronically sleep-deprived and exhausted. Forty-four-year-old Magda was the granddaughter of a Polish physician, whose daughter, Magda's mother, had emigrated to the United States just after World War II. When she left Europe, Magda's mother was the only surviving member of a large family that had been decimated in the camps.

Magda's father was an American physician, whom her mother had met soon after her arrival here, while he was still a student. On account of her father, Magda's own childhood and adolescence, spent in an idyllic setting in western Massachusetts, had been financially privileged; and because of her mother, she had been a gently treated and obsessively watched-over child.

“Salon appointments were always the big thing. She always had my hair done, even when I was quite little."

As an adult, Magda kept her brown hair very long, and wore it invariably in an elaborate French braid.

When I asked Magda whether she had ever been traumatized, she replied, in wholly unaccented English, "No, of course not. Nothing like that." But somehow, even given her considerable intelligence and her distinguished forebears, Magda had not lived up to her family's ambitions for her. As a child, she had wanted to be a doctor, like her father and her legendary grandfather. Instead, he had dropped out of Harvard University in her junior year, and had spent more than two decades being haunted by her nightmare, suffering intermittently from major depression, and barely getting by as a nurse's aide.

"It's the story my mother told me," she explained, sallow-faced and sad, "except it's not my mother. It's me."

"It's you? You mean it's you in the dream?"

"Yes. It's what happened to my mother, only it's happening to me. Over and over again, every night."

"Your mother told you a story about what happened to her in the war?"

"Oh yes, many times. Always the same story, about the camp."

"How old were you when she first told you this story?"

"I don't know, really. I don't remember a time when I didn't know it. I must have been really little."

"And your dream is always the same?"

"Always the same. Always just as bad. I'm with a lot of people, in some kind of a long line. I'm naked, and I'm really, really cold. Someone shoves me down to the ground, and I see that they're taking away my mother and my father. I scream "Mother!' but someone kicks me hard. I wake up screaming. I wake up screaming every night."

"Is this exactly what your mother told you about what happened to her?"

"Yes, exactly. . . except, well, except that she was not a tiny child, and in my dream, I'm a tiny child."

"That's so terrifying. "When you wake up screaming from the dream, what do you do?"

"I get up and walk around my apartment. I turn on all the lights, and I touch things. I touch my big couch and the soft draperies. I touch the numbers on my kitchen phone, all like that. I need things to bring me back to the here and now, or something. The dream is so real. And after I've done that for a while, I think I start to get really numb. Not frightened by the dream anymore-instead I get, well, kind of feeling-less. I wake up on the couch a lot in the mornings."

Magda was tormented by this dream every night of her life, and our progress in therapy was extremely slow.

While she was still quite young, she had made a vow never to become a mother herself. During one session, when I asked her why, she answered without hesitation that the world was just too dangerous for children.

"But you live in New England," I said, "and World War II was so long ago."

"You're right, of course," she replied. But then she looked away, and stared in silence at an empty chair across the room.
 
Chu said:
"But you live in New England," I said, "and World War II was so long ago."

"You're right, of course," she replied. But then she looked away, and stared in silence at an empty chair across the room.

Fascinating story. I mentioned elsewhere that I think that for a certain period of time, I 'channeled' part of the WWII trauma of my great-grandfather. This was a series of rather gory dreams in first-person experience, which were confirmed by my grandmother AFTER I had them, without me revealing anything about my dreams. The most compelling indication of that was: I saw 'stitching' of wounds without anaesthesia, shouting "I don't want to go back!", and passing out. Grandma then told me that her father was a Samaritan during WWII and also passed out due to what he saw. Not a definitive proof, but still...

Once I saw a connection, I told my great-grandfather in my mind: "I acknowledge the pain you had to go through, and I am very thankful that you enabled me to have my life. However, this pain is not mine. I am just the great-grandchild." The dreams stopped, and never returned.
 
luke wilson said:
Plus since it appears to be a sort of huge black hole in which anything can be thrown into... it seemed to me that it's setting an impossible challenge for the conscious mind. How can one truly know what lurks where one can't see? It ain't called the unconscious for no reason... Logic dictates it's a black hole that the conscious mind can't truly come to fully know, therefore always leaving us in the position of never having solved the problem.

Not true, I think. Have you ever done something, or repeatedly done something, that you soon regretted? A repeating pattern kind of thing? Have you ever done something that you later wondered "why did I do that? It caused me such a problem!?".

I know you have, because you've written about such things on this forum.

That's your "unconscious", which is colored and shaped by your "predator", the totality of your programs, your wrong beliefs, your biases, prejudices etc. If you want to change it those, then you start the process of learning to spot and then going against those "inclinations" that you indulge yourself in, apparently despite your own best interests. Did you notice there, that I just more or less described two "you's"? You can probably see them too. So, I'd say you already know your unconscious, to some extent.

But I'd second AI's suggestion that your read "Strangers to ourselves" and "Thinking fast and slow", where the fact of these "two yous" are explained in very clear detail.
 
whitecoast said:
On a personal note, I've had an indigenous past life memory come up before, about being orphaned after my family and village was massacred by an invading tribe. When I was litttle I would always worry about not seeing other family members again after we took separate cars to a family gathering. When I play D&D and other tabletop rpgs, or write stories, all the people I "play" or write about are orphans.

Hi whitecoast, can you identify any character traits or beliefs or attitudes (fears etc.) in your adult life that might relate to this idea of being orphaned or abandoned? And if so, how might they have shaped your relationships with others and with "life" in general?
 
Joe said:
I have also been thinking about karma and what it is. The standard idea is that it is the process of having to atone for something "bad" we did in a past life. Like if you were a slave master in one life, you'll be a slave in another. But I was thinking that this involves too much in the way of judgment, and perhaps a more impartial view of it is that karma amounts to the beliefs that we internalize as a result of actions we have taken in a past life/lives and experiences we have had as a result. Those beliefs influence our attitudes, behavior and characters in our subsequent incarnations and, as a result, our experiences.

If those beliefs are usually wrong beliefs, then the process of offloading that karma is "simply" correcting those wrong beliefs (which isn't usually very simple or easy). Nevertheless, perhaps this is why the Cs said that the main 3D lessons that have to be learned are "universal karmic and simple understandings", which Laura expanded with:

This makes a lot of sense, thank you Joe. I've done some journaling the past two days before going to bed. The writing itself gave me a bit more insight of those wrong beliefs, or at least one of them. While I didn't get any particular dreams, I did get a very short image in my mind of being strangled by someone else, which was strange.

I was told that in one of my past lives, the one that was connected in some way to my feelings of emotional abandonment that I've had since childhood (but is not as strong now), was one in which I was part of a group of people who had a certain opinion and who were locked up for life for having that opinion. I was a male in my younger years when I was incarcerated. So, I basically had spent a lifetime alone in my own head so to speak, while feeling misunderstood and abandoned in a way.

If I look at my childhood, I can see that my parents were not quite emotionally available or supportive. So mostly I would keep things inside, or talk to God (when I was younger). I'd often lock myself up in my room and try to deal with my problems on my own, but mostly I'd brush them under a rug. So, in a way, I've learned not to communicate (or in the wrong way), and communication has been difficult for me for a long time. I was told that in my past life, there was something going on in the 'throat chakra', which stands for "accepting your originality, expressing your authentic voice" or basically just communicating with other people, really listening and expressing your thoughts and feelings.

I have noticed that networking, and trying to be a bit more open and writing articles has helped with this, but I do find it to be still difficult. I guess it's a matter of a step at a time.

As a sidenote, I thought it was interesting that it was mentioned here that children might tend to copy their parents' traits in order to be accepted by them, which might play a role as well in repeating the cycle:

Briefly stated, our unconscious reasons for adopting negative behavior patterns from our parents are:

- the hope that they will love us if we are like them.
- to vindictively punish our parents by reflecting their negativity back to them.
- to punish ourselves for feeling unworthy and unloveable.
 
Last night I finished reading the Wave Chapter 71: If I Speak in the Tongues of Men and Angels or, Jaguars: The Nonlinear Dynamics of Love and Complex Systems

http://cassiopaea.org/2012/03/30/the-wave-chapter-71-if-i-speak-in-the-tongues-of-men-and-angels-or-jaguars-the-nonlinear-dynamics-of-love-and-complex-systems/

It made me think of this thread :) There was one of my favorite quotes by Ark on drifting and a quote from the book that has to do with the cognitive research quoted by Approaching Infinity:

A: All is who and what. … What is chosen? Only you can choose. The choice comes by nature and free will and looking and listening. Where you are is not important. Who you are is and also what you see.

At each moment I can choose. At these moments I have to be careful not to let things just go their way.

Anyone committed to science has difficulty with free will. In The Selfish Gene, (2nd edition, pp. 270–71), Dawkins asks, “What on earth do you think you are, if not a robot, albeit a very complicated one?” From personal introspection, I do not believe that my conscious self exercises free will. Certainly I ponder difficult decisions at length, but the decision itself invariably comes into consciousness from a different, unconscious realm. Brain research confirms that what we think are spontaneous decisions, acts of free will, are prepared in the unconscious mind before we become aware of them.

However, the many-instants interpretation puts an intriguingly different slant on causality, suggesting that it operates in nothing like the way we normally belief it to. In both classical physics and Everett’s original scheme, what happens now is the consequence of the past. But with many instants, each Now “competes” with all other Nows in a timeless beauty contest to win the highest probability. The ability of each Now to “resonate” with the other Nows is what counts. Its chance to exist is determined by what it is in itself. The structure of things is the determining power in a timeless world.

The same applies to us, for our conscious instants are embedded in the Nows. The probability of us experiencing ourselves doing something is just the sum of the probabilities for all the different Nows in which that experience is embedded. Everything we experience is brought into existence by being what it is. Our very nature determines whether we shall or shall not be. … We are because of what we are. Our existence is determined by the way we relate to (or resonate with) everything else that can be. … One day the theory of evolution will be subsumed in a greater scheme, just as Newtonian mechanics was subsumed in relativity without in any way ceasing to be great and valid science. … I do not think that we are robots or that anything happens by chance. That view arises because we do not have a large enough perspective on things. We are the answers to the question of what can be maximally sensitive to the totality of what is possible. (Barbour 1999, 324–325)

“You will do what you will do.”

I had a dream earlier this week that a "voice" was saying this phrase, only that the following was added: "And if you are asleep, you will do nothing". Somehow, adding the obvious helped clarify things for me :D
 
Gaby said:
Anyone committed to science has difficulty with free will. In The Selfish Gene, (2nd edition, pp. 270–71), Dawkins asks, “What on earth do you think you are, if not a robot, albeit a very complicated one?” From personal introspection, I do not believe that my conscious self exercises free will. Certainly I ponder difficult decisions at length, but the decision itself invariably comes into consciousness from a different, unconscious realm. Brain research confirms that what we think are spontaneous decisions, acts of free will, are prepared in the unconscious mind before we become aware of them.

However, the many-instants interpretation puts an intriguingly different slant on causality, suggesting that it operates in nothing like the way we normally belief it to. In both classical physics and Everett’s original scheme, what happens now is the consequence of the past. But with many instants, each Now “competes” with all other Nows in a timeless beauty contest to win the highest probability. The ability of each Now to “resonate” with the other Nows is what counts. Its chance to exist is determined by what it is in itself. The structure of things is the determining power in a timeless world.

The same applies to us, for our conscious instants are embedded in the Nows. The probability of us experiencing ourselves doing something is just the sum of the probabilities for all the different Nows in which that experience is embedded. Everything we experience is brought into existence by being what it is. Our very nature determines whether we shall or shall not be. … We are because of what we are. Our existence is determined by the way we relate to (or resonate with) everything else that can be. … One day the theory of evolution will be subsumed in a greater scheme, just as Newtonian mechanics was subsumed in relativity without in any way ceasing to be great and valid science. … I do not think that we are robots or that anything happens by chance. That view arises because we do not have a large enough perspective on things. We are the answers to the question of what can be maximally sensitive to the totality of what is possible. (Barbour 1999, 324–325)

Thank you for that. It's been a long while since I read something like this within the group.
 
Azur said:
Thank you for that. It's been a long while since I read something like this within the group.

Maybe you haven't been reading enough. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom